ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Immigration System

Therese Coffey: What steps she plans to take to decouple temporary residence from permanent settlement in the immigration system.

Theresa May: The Government have pledged to break the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement. Settling in Britain should be a privilege to be earned, not an automatic add-on to a temporary way in. We have already announced that we will introduce a new permanent limit on non-EU economic migrants, with a reduction in the number of visas in the next financial year from 28,000 to 21,700, a fall of over 20%. The Government will consult later this year on breaking the link between work and settlement.

Therese Coffey: My constituents are largely concerned not about people who work here temporarily, but about people who work here for a short time and then can settle permanently. Is there not a case for a review of the criteria for permanent settlement, to try to avoid this kind of practice?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her supplementary question. We will review the entire question of permanent settlement including the criteria for it as part of our review of the whole immigration system. We will make announcements on that shortly, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have already tightened the settlement criteria in April, by introducing, for example, a new criminality threshold so all applicants must be clear of unspent convictions when applying, a new income requirement for skilled and highly skilled migrants applying for settlement, and reform of the English language requirements.

Paul Flynn: Regardless of whether applicants are applying for temporary or permanent residence, and of whether they have friends in high places, should we not restrict the admission of foreigners convicted of paedophilia offences?

Theresa May: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is trying to lead his question. Of course there are rules on that offence in relation to exclusions from the United Kingdom. Decisions on exclusions are taken by the Home Secretary on the basis of evidence put forward by the UK Border Agency.

James Clappison: On temporary residence, is it not clear that under the Government’s plans students are welcome to come and study in this country, and, indeed, should be made welcome? However, is it not part of the inheritance of this Government that large numbers of people have used the study route as a means of coming to the country to work, rather than to study? Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that this Government will bear down on bogus students and bogus colleges who abuse the system?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I am happy to give him precisely that assurance in relation to the stance this Government are taking. It is perfectly clear from the figures that, sadly, all too many people have used the student visa route as a means simply of coming to the UK to work. There are some very good examples of colleges that exist in name only, such as the college that had two lecturers covering 940 students. I hope there is cross-House agreement that that sort of abuse must be stopped, but we do want to ensure that legitimate students wanting to study legitimate courses at legitimate institutions come here.

Ian Lucas: Is it the Home Secretary’s intention to scrap identity cards for foreign nationals, and if so, how will that assist in preventing individuals who are here on visas from overstaying?

Theresa May: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no: the biometric residence permits will continue.

Local Crime and Policing Website

Oliver Colvile: What representations she has received from members of the public on the local crime and policing website.

Nick Herbert: Since its launch on 31 January, our street level crime mapping website police.uk has received almost 400 million hits. The website is a strong example of this Government’s commitment to greater transparency in public services, by giving communities the information they need to hold their local police to account.

Oliver Colvile: I have received a number of positive comments on the crime website maps. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans or initiatives to add anything more to them?

Nick Herbert: Yes, the Government intend to build on the information currently given. There are six trailblazing police forces looking at how this can be done, including Lincolnshire police and West Yorkshire police, who are looking at how we might supply sentencing outcome information so the public know not only that the crime was committed, but what happened afterwards in the criminal justice system.

Toby Perkins: In the interest of transparency, will the Minister consider adding to the value of the mapping crimes website by including figures on the dozens of police who will not be on the streets because of the huge cuts his Government are imposing on our police forces?

Nick Herbert: Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. If he looks at the website police.uk, he will see that the neighbourhood policing teams are shown alongside the area in which the individual lives. Every force up and down the country is committed to protecting neighbourhood policing, and those officers will remain on the streets for the public as savings are made in the back and middle offices.

Antisocial Behaviour

Helen Grant: What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

Gavin Barwell: What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

Lorraine Fullbrook: What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

James Brokenshire: The Government recently launched a consultation on reforming the toolkit for dealing with antisocial behaviour. The proposals will reduce the bureaucracy, delay and cost that hamper the police and their partners. We are also working to help police forces improve their service to victims by, for example, supporting eight police forces in trialling a new approach to handling calls on antisocial behaviour.

Helen Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that community partnerships and statutory partnerships are key in dealing with antisocial behaviour?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The nature of antisocial behaviour means that the main emphasis in tackling it lies with the police, because much of this behaviour is crime, but other partners, such as community safety partnerships, play an essential role. We support that and it is recognised in the toolkit for civil orders. We have stripped away some of the bureaucracy that got in the way of getting those partners to do the job that they are needed to do.

Gavin Barwell: May I encourage my hon. Friend to liaise with police authorities about deploying safer neighbourhood teams on the basis of places, not artificial ward boundaries, as such an approach would allow coverage to extend into the crucial evening period, when a lot of antisocial behaviour takes place?

James Brokenshire: There are certainly operational issues associated with the tasking of safer neighbourhood teams. I know from my hon. Friend’s constituency the importance and emphasis that the Mayor of London places on those teams. I am sure that he will have heard clearly the message that my hon. Friend has sent about the importance of discretion at the operational level.

Lorraine Fullbrook: What can be done to engage young people early in order to prevent their engaging in antisocial behaviour?

James Brokenshire: The issue relating to young people and antisocial behaviour is important. It is also worth recognising that most victims of antisocial behaviour are young people themselves. The Government are focused on intervening early: the early intervention grant, which is worth about £2.2 billion, will support activities to help young people start off in a positive way. Clearly, young people can be victims of antisocial behaviour, which is why it is important that we take action early to prevent it in their communities.

Alun Michael: Does the Minister accept that in dealing with adults involved in neighbourhood nuisance, low-level violence and intimidation, antisocial behaviour orders have been an invaluable part of the toolkit? Will he give an assurance that they will continue to be available to police and local authorities seeking to reduce antisocial behaviour?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are consulting on a new toolkit, whereby the tools are reduced in number to five core ones. The problem is that ASBOs have been used less and less and the number of breaches has increased. We are clear about the need for civil orders, which is why we are consulting on the new powers. They are better tailored and will ensure that the civil standard of proof is used to make the orders easier to obtain. They will also be able to put in place positive requirements to break patterns that may lead to antisocial behaviour and crime.

Kerry McCarthy: In Bristol, the police have made very good use of the antisocial behaviour legislation—the acceptable behaviour contracts and ASBOs—to tackle kerb crawling and on-street prostitution, which blights the lives of many residents of the Eastville area of my constituency. Can the Minister assure the House that any replacement for the current antisocial behaviour legislation will continue to give the police the powers to tackle this problem?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that specific example and I hope that her community will take part in the ongoing consultation on the new toolkit, which will last until the middle of May. We are clear that the existing powers remain in place until such time as a new regime is introduced, but we are very focused on it being practical, supporting communities and having the effect that people want it to have in bearing down on antisocial behaviour and the crime that can lead from it.

Vernon Coaker: Can the Minister confirm that more than 10,000 police officers, many of whom are in neighbourhood teams tackling antisocial behaviour, will be cut over the next two years? The Thames Valley police force, which covers the constituencies of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, said the following about possible local youth centre closures:
	“the loss of those services would mean more opportunities for young people to get involved in crime and antisocial behaviour”.
	So with cuts to front-line policing and youth services across the country, how exactly does the Minister expect his rebranded, weaker version of the ASBO to maintain progress in combating antisocial behaviour?

James Brokenshire: I do not accept that this is some sort of weaker tool. There is going to be a more effective suite of tools with which to bear down on antisocial behaviour. Let us not forget that it was the last Labour Home Secretary who suggested that the previous Government had in some way been coasting on antisocial behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has reminded me that Thames Valley police has said that it will be protecting neighbourhood response teams. It is also worth highlighting that the Mayor of London recognises the importance of safer neighbourhood and community teams and of delivering on the antisocial behaviour agenda.

Tom Brake: I do not know whether the Minister has seen “Minority Report” in which precogs predict where and when serious crimes are going to occur, but will he assess a less futuristic and more practical technique that has been advocated by Peter Neyroud, the ex-chief of the National Policing Improvement Agency, and by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which could cut reoffending and antisocial behaviour? The technique flags up the criminals who are most likely to reoffend, thereby allowing resources to be concentrated on them and halving prisoner numbers, saving money and improving public safety in the process.

James Brokenshire: I am not sure whether Philip K. Dick is bedtime reading for Peter Neyroud, but certainly the whole idea of prevention and acting earlier is very much at the heart of the consultation in which we are engaged on antisocial behaviour. I am certainly clear about the role of prevention and the need to act early in breaking patterns of offending before people become too engaged. I will certainly look at the research to which he refers.

Mr Speaker: I call Rachel Reeves. Not here.

Illegal Immigration

Edward Leigh: What further steps she plans to take to control illegal immigration; and if she will make a statement.

Damian Green: UK Border Agency enforcement officers are continuing to crack down on immigration crime and remove illegal migrants. Our proposals to tackle abuse by foreign nationals using student visas to gain work in the UK, alongside new plans to toughen up marriage and family routes, will further tackle illegal migration into the UK.

Edward Leigh: As Members of Parliament, we are approached all the time by constituents who want to marry somebody from abroad and it is only humane and right that we should try to help them, but our job is made doubly, even trebly, difficult by the existence of sham marriages. What is my hon. Friend doing to tackle the problem without making the system so bureaucratic for everyone else?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend identifies one of the key loopholes that did exist in the immigration system. Last summer, I asked our enforcement teams to focus on sham marriages, and 53 sham marriage operations were undertaken, resulting in 126 arrests. Between November and January, a further 86 operations followed
	that up, focusing on sham marriages, with an additional 29 arrests. This has been one of the big loopholes in our immigration system, but we are becoming ever more effective in closing it.

Ben Bradshaw: In seeking to strike the right balance on student visas, will the Minister and the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that they will listen carefully to the representations of universities in the UK, including mine in Exeter, and of our reputable language schools, which say that the current proposals would be devastating to their sector and to the economy as a whole?

Damian Green: We are indeed speaking to many universities and listening to their representations, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met the vice-chancellor of Exeter university. I am sure that when our proposals are put forward, universities will discover that they defend the rights of legitimate students to come here to study legitimately at legitimate institutions. At the same time, we will also crack down on the huge and widespread abuse of the student visa.

Philip Hollobone: Which three countries are responsible for the largest number of illegal immigrants into Britain and what specific steps are being taken with those countries to take those people back when they are caught?

Damian Green: By definition, illegal immigrants do not go through the system, so it is quite difficult to give accurate figures about where they come from, but we know the main routes by which people come into the country, one of which is from Asia, through Turkey into Greece. We are working very hard with both the Greek and Turkish Governments to stop that route and minimise the problem. One of the most effective things we are doing is improving our border controls at Calais, which mean that the number of people who are identified as coming across illegally into Britain is now running at about a third of the level it was 18 months ago. That is a significant strengthening of our border defences.

Shabana Mahmood: Any action to control illegal immigration depends upon a properly staffed and effective border agency which can both detect and remove illegal immigrants. With cuts of 20% and job losses of 5,200 for the UK Border Agency, detection and enforcement officers are already warning that their work is being undermined. The Government are talking tough on illegal immigration. Is the Minister sure that the Home Secretary has given him the resources to deliver?

Damian Green: Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady will, of course, recognise that the reason there must be cuts in public services is the appalling state of the public finances that her Government left us with. We are confident that by using technology, better intelligence and flexible working, we can maintain and improve levels of border security with fewer staff. I invite her to consider the example of Calais. We can now check 1.5 million lorries a year, and in the past year we have found just over 9,700 individuals trying to cross illegally, compared to just over 29,000 in 2009, so the new system that we are operating does work.

Police Forces (Paperwork)

Claire Perry: What steps she is taking to reduce the burden of paperwork on police forces.

Mark Lancaster: What steps she is taking to reduce the burden of paperwork on police forces.

Theresa May: The Government are committed to reducing bureaucracy. We are scrapping the stop-and- account form, and reducing the amount of information to be recorded on the stop-and-search form. Doing those two things saves up to 800,000 man-hours a year. We are returning certain charging decisions to the police. That will save up to a further 50,000 man-hours per year. We are working with the police to sweep away a further range of the red tape that prevents officers doing what they and the public want them to do—getting out on the streets and cutting crime.

Claire Perry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 14 months the Wiltshire police force has undergone four separate inspections by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary lasting three working weeks and costing the force £60,000, and no meaningful recommendations have been made as a result? Does she intend to reform this box-ticking regime to cut the burdens of police bureaucracy and paperwork still further?

Theresa May: I was not aware of the specific figures for Wiltshire. I realise that this is an issue. That is why the Policing Minister has been working with HMIC on reducing the bureaucratic burdens of the inspection regime by ensuring that we maintain an effective inspection regime, and he will inform the House on this matter in due course.

Mark Lancaster: I commend my right hon. Friend on her efforts to improve on the just 11% of time that the police are visible to the general public, but may I press her on what actions she will take to reduce the unnecessary amount of time that police officers spend in court, especially as delays continue to be endemic?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. In looking at saving police time so that they can do the job that we want them to do, we need to look across the whole of the criminal justice system. That is what I am doing, together with the Justice Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Policing Minister, who is also a Minister in the Ministry of Justice.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to reducing police bureaucracy. As she knows, in October last year Jan Berry published her report and made 32 recommendations. How many of those recommendations have now been implemented? Will the Home Secretary continue Jan Berry’s term of office so that this is not just a one-off piece of research, but a continuing monitoring of the bureaucracy in our police service?

Theresa May: Jan Berry did a valuable piece of work looking at bureaucracy in policing. We have already implemented a number of the recommendations that came out of that. I have referred to the restoration of some charging decisions down to local police, the more proportionate approach to inspections, and revising the police performance development reviews. We are taking the work forward in a slightly different way. There is a programme board led by Chris Sims, the chief constable of west midlands, which is working with the Home Office and identifying further areas of bureaucracy that can be scrapped.

Police Numbers (Greater Manchester)

Jim Dobbin: What estimate she has made of the likely number of police officers in Greater Manchester in March 2015.

Nick Herbert: It is a matter for the chief constable and the police authority to determine the number of police officers that are deployed by Greater Manchester police within the available resource.

Jim Dobbin: Crime levels went down under the previous Government. That is a well known fact. The chief constable of Greater Manchester estimates that around 1,500 officers will be lost because of the cuts. Can the Government justify that?

Nick Herbert: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are also 4,000 police staff working in Greater Manchester police. There was a huge increase in the number of police staff employed by police forces under the previous Government. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police said in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that
	“there was already a recognition, certainly in Greater Manchester Police, that some of our headquarters operations had got too big.”
	Forces can and must make savings in back and middle offices while protecting the front line.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister has not really responded to the real issue on this. Will he tell the House unequivocally—and repeat his view—that when we see the number of police officers reduced in Greater Manchester, as we will, it will have no impact on crime?

Nick Herbert: We are absolutely determined to maintain efficient and effective forces, and every chief constable I meet, including the chief constable of Greater Manchester, makes the same point. The chief constable said last week, after being misquoted on the matter:
	“We need to have an intelligent debate about the cuts and see the opportunities, not just the threats.”

Clive Efford: The Government insist that it is possible to cut 10,000 police posts nationally, and up to 1,500 in Manchester. I should point out to the Minister that they also plan to cut nearly 1,600 back-office staff. We know from an answer that Baroness Neville-Jones gave in the House of Lords that there is no formally agreed definition of front-line police services. If those
	are not cuts to front-line police services, we would like to know what they are. Can the Minister get to the Dispatch Box and tell us exactly what the definition of police front-line service is, because if he cannot, how can he protect them?

Nick Herbert: I have defined it on a number of occasions, including in a written answer. Let me repeat it for the hon. Gentleman: front-line policing
	“includes neighbourhood policing, response policing and criminal investigation.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 194W.]
	There can be savings in the back and middle offices, as at least a third of all spending is in those areas. If he thinks that there is no definition of front-line policing, how can he be so confident that there will be cuts in the front line? His position is nonsense.

Immigration Bail Conditions

Richard Fuller: If she will bring forward proposals to change immigration bail conditions to make them consistent with proposed conditions for control orders.

Damian Green: The Government see no need to review the range of bail conditions that may be imposed in immigration cases. We will continue to seek bail conditions that enable us to manage the threat posed by the individual. These will vary from case to case.

Richard Fuller: I hear that answer, but how can it be right that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is able to impose conditions on people, perhaps those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain, on charges that are not disclosed to them, that restrict their communications and movement and force relocation, conditions that the Government say are unacceptable in control orders? How can that be right for people in those circumstances?

Damian Green: SIAC deals primarily with cases where an individual poses a threat to national security, so we must take all the issues surrounding those individual cases extremely seriously. As such, SIAC sets bail conditions that it considers necessary to control any risk of absconding and the threat posed to national security, whether or not the individual absconds. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that SIAC has enormous responsibilities and takes them very seriously in each individual case.

Julian Huppert: I agree with the question from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). Will the Minister go one step further than is being suggested and make both immigration bail conditions and the conditions for control orders more like regular bail conditions?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend will recognise what I have just said about SIAC, which you will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat, Mr Speaker. The conditions for immigration bail and for control orders, and for the regime that will replace control orders, have rather different surrounding contexts than the setting of normal bail conditions, so it is entirely reasonable for SIAC to come to different conclusions and have different powers.

Student Visas

Steve Brine: What plans she has for the future of the student visa entry system.

Damian Green: We are considering the responses we received following closure of the recent consultation on reform of the student immigration system, which closed on 31 January. We are concluding our analysis of responses and will announce future plans for the student system in due course.

Steve Brine: I thank the Minister for his reply. May I press him to reassure legitimate English language schools, such as the Winchester School of English in my constituency, which he has visited, and higher education institutions, including the university of Winchester, that new B2 English entry level requirements will not wipe out a critical source of their respective revenues?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right: I have visited that language school in his constituency and admired its work. One proposal in the consultation was to raise the English language requirement from B1 to B2, because we believe it is right that students should have a good command of English to complete their course. In responses to the consultation, universities and others have expressed concern about that proposal, and we are considering those representations as well as the many others that we have received.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Minister recognise that, if the changes to student visa entry requirements are wrong, it will have a devastating impact on our universities and other educational institutions?

Damian Green: I recognise, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, that we need to strike the right balance so that the brightest and best students can come to this country and benefit it both in the short and the long term. At the same time, however, we recognise that we need to crack down on the many abuses of the student visa system under the previous Government, which have led to the widespread lack of confidence in our immigration system. Of course we need to strike a balance between those two demands, and we are confident that we will do so.

Bob Russell: May I suggest to the Minister that all he has to do to deal with the unintended consequences of the proposals is to look at the findings and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament? All problems would be dealt with.

Damian Green: It is a universal truth that reading Home Affairs Committee reports always leads to greater enlightenment. I have read the relevant report, and I always absorb the Committee’s reports, but I will redouble my efforts to ensure that I am familiar with every last detail of every report.

Gerry Sutcliffe: We all agree with the Home Secretary that bogus colleges should be closed, and most seem to be in the private
	sector. She and the Immigration Minister will know that further education colleges’ fee income from foreign students is £42 million, with a contribution to the economy of £80 million. We have 184 colleges that are registered as highly trusted sponsors, with more than 20,000 international students. When can they expect to know what will happen about non-degree courses? It does and will affect the budgets not only of colleges, but of universities.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is right that the main abuse that we have found has been in private sector colleges at below-degree level, which is why one principal proposal on which we have consulted is that nobody will be able to offer a course at below-degree level unless they become a highly trusted sponsor. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on the whole, public sector bodies that apply for highly trusted sponsorship obtain it successfully, but many private sector bodies do not have such status, and that is one key distinction that we need to maintain—that only people whom we can trust to do the job properly should be enabled to bring foreign students to this country.

Police (Complaints)

Simon Hughes: What assessment she has made of the trends in levels of complaints against police forces in England and Wales in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa May: The police complaints statistics for 2009-10, published by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, show an 8% increase in recorded complaints against the police in England and Wales over the previous year. It is right that citizens should feel able to hold the police to account for the service they provide, and improving police accountability is a top priority of this Government.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. May I raise a matter that I have raised with the authorities before, which is about the practice of kettling, first, at the G20 demonstrations, then at the student demonstrations last autumn and, even, on new year’s eve, when dealing with crowd control? Does she have any further thoughts that she can share with the House on how the increasing number of complaints about the practice can be dealt with in an effective and long-term manner?

Theresa May: Of course, within the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, we are putting forward some proposals to enhance the complaints procedure against the police, and we have been doing that work in consultation and discussions with the IPCC. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will also be interested to know that the senior officer in the Metropolitan police with responsibility for public order has recently made several announcements about how containment will be dealt with in future, making it clear that, should containment take place, toilets and water will indeed be provided, and that an individual will be available on site to ensure that those who are vulnerable or wish to leave are able to leave such areas.

Human Trafficking

Andrew Selous: When she plans to announce the outcome of her review of human trafficking policy.

Lynne Featherstone: Combating human trafficking, including the sexual exploitation of women and girls, is a key priority for the Government. We are committed to tackling organised crime groups who profit from this human misery, and to protecting victims. We are due to publish our new strategy on human trafficking in the spring.

Andrew Selous: Will my hon. Friend make sure that the review deals with trafficked children who are placed in local authority care, where one would hope they would be safe, only to go missing and often to be re-trafficked? That is an appalling state of affairs. I hope that she can give me some reassurance that the review will deal with this very distressing aspect of trafficking in the United Kingdom.

Lynne Featherstone: Yes, the Government acknowledge the difficult and important issue of children going missing from local authorities. At a national level, we are strengthening the arrangements in place to support vulnerable young people by placing the national strategic policing responsibility for missing children within the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. In fact, its thematic review deals explicitly with the issue of trafficked children going missing from local authorities.

Fiona Mactaggart: But does the Minister agree that if we were to adopt the European directive on human trafficking, which specifically provides for a guardian for trafficked children, that would be a real step in protecting the children to whom the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred?

Lynne Featherstone: At the moment, local authorities are, in particular, employing good practice around the use of interpreters and making sure that the places where children are placed are kept secret. As I may have mentioned before in this House, we are looking closely at the text of the European directive and considering its merits, and if we conclude that opting into it would benefit the UK, we will apply to do so.

Police Numbers (Crime Levels)

Owen Smith: What research her Department has commissioned and evaluated on any relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.

Nick Herbert: The Government believe that police forces can make savings while protecting the front line. We do not accept that reducing costs will cause an increase in crime. What matters is how resources are used and how officers are deployed.

Owen Smith: The Minister will know that in south Wales we have already seen the announcement that 250 front-line police officers will lose their jobs. When I
	attended a meeting a couple of weeks ago with our police authority, it warned that a further 320 front-line officers could lose out as a result of the cuts. Is the Minister seriously telling the people of Wales that crime will not increase as a result of that enormous loss in front-line policing capacity?

Nick Herbert: I do not accept that the reductions in head count in that police force or in any other will impact on the front line, and I very much doubt that the chief constable would agree with that. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Home Affairs Committee concluded in its recent report:
	“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime. The reduction in the police workforce need not inevitably lead to a rise in crime.”
	That is a cross-party Committee.

Anne McIntosh: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that this is about how police forces are deploying their officers. In North Yorkshire, we have a particular problem with rural crime. I would be most grateful if he would meet me and other rural Members to discuss this issue. Farms and farm property, in particular, are being trashed because we simply do not have enough cover in rural areas.

Nick Herbert: I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. I understand the importance of dealing with crime in rural areas just as we must deal with crime elsewhere. The police cannot act alone, and it is very important that there are effective partnerships with, for instance, the farming community so that, where possible, there can be a concerted effort to deal with this problem.

Human Trafficking

Emma Reynolds: When she plans to announce the outcome of her review of human trafficking policy.

Lynne Featherstone: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Emma Reynolds: In September, in defending the Government’s failure to opt into the European Union directive, the Prime Minister said:
	“We have put everything that is in the directive in place.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 873.]
	At the same time, he implied that the directive is not in our national interest. Is it not the case that it is both squarely in our national interest and goes beyond the measures that we already have in place? Will she therefore take the opportunity of the 100th anniversary of international women’s day to commit to this House that the Government will sign up to the European directive when they get the opportunity?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the hon. Lady, but not for the first time I repeat that we are looking at the directive’s text and considering its merits. If we conclude that opting into the directive will benefit the UK, we will consider doing so.

Peter Bone: The question refers to the date on which the new policy on human trafficking will be announced. I congratulate the Government on recognising the need to change the policy, but may I urge a big society solution? While the policy is being considered and drafted, perhaps the key non-governmental organisations could be involved in co-operating—not just consulted—so that the overall policy is a big-society solution.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Minister for Immigration met those organisations recently and I have no doubt that we will take that forward. Our common-sense and extensive strategy will try to prevent trafficking in the country of origin, do more on the border to stop it coming in and, if it is in this country, do more with policing.

Asylum Improvement Project

Jim Cunningham: What recent discussions she has had with stakeholders on the asylum improvement project.

Damian Green: The Home Secretary and I, and our officials, have discussed aspects of the asylum improvement project with a number of corporate partners. The National Asylum Stakeholder Forum, the Scottish Asylum Stakeholder Forum and the Still Human Still Here coalition have also discussed the project recently.

Jim Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he establish pilot schemes and where exactly are they likely to be?

Damian Green: We have established a number of pilot schemes already. There is one in the north-west concentrating on using early intervention to help asylum claimants. We have set up the early legal advice project in the west midlands, and a project to attempt to improve the flow of decision making in London. If those pilots are successful, we will of course move them on to a national scale.

Mr Speaker: Angela Smith is not here so I call Tony Baldry.

Student Visas

Tony Baldry: What plans she has for the future of the student visa entry system.

Damian Green: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Tony Baldry: This morning, I met a young Chevening scholar from Iraq who is studying for an MSc in engineering and robotics at Sussex university. He is hoping to go back to his country to make a contribution when he has completed his degree course. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we want as many overseas students like that young man as possible to come to the UK, because they enrich our university life and take the skills and knowledge that they acquire back to their home countries when they complete their courses? Will he confirm that while
	seeking to achieve that, we also want to bear down on the abuses of sham institutions that have been set up to bring about immigration abuses?

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is gearing up for an Adjournment debate on this subject. I do not know why he gave such a full question, but it was very helpful and we are grateful to him.

Damian Green: As ever, I agree completely about the helpfulness of my hon. Friend’s question. He presents the House with an extremely good example of what should happen, in that a foreign student came here to learn on a high-quality course and to develop skills that he can take back to his country. As is crucial, he is planning to leave at the end of his course. That is precisely the sort of thing that benefits our university system and brings confidence in the immigration system. What does not do that is students coming here and simply staying. Published information shows that of the students who came here in 2004, more than 20% were still here five years later in 2009. That is the kind of thing that we must investigate, to establish whether those people are still genuine students or are just exploiting the system to work in this country.

Stephen McCabe: Last week, the Minister for Universities and Science told the Home Affairs Committee that he wanted foreign students to come to this country, but admitted that he found Government policy in the area “fuzzy”. The Select Committee was told on the same day by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), that he wanted a cut in immigration but an increase in the number of students coming from Latin America. What exactly is the Government’s policy on the future of the student visa entry system?

Damian Green: Under the student visa scheme, we want good students to come here to study genuine courses at genuine institutions. Under the previous Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished supporter for so long, the student visa system became the single biggest loophole in an already chaotic immigration system. That is why we are having to deal with it. It is significantly the biggest route of immigration into this country—about 60% of visas are issued for students. That is why it is so important that this Government get a grip on the failures of the previous Government.

Mr Speaker: We are immensely grateful to the Minister.

Topical Questions

Simon Danczuk: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: The Home Office is committed to protecting the public and to freeing up the police to fight crime more effectively and efficiently. The House will shortly consider the remaining stages of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which is aimed at empowering the public to hold the police to account
	for their role in cutting crime, before it moves to consideration in another place. Tomorrow, Tom Winsor will publish the first part of his independent review of police pay and conditions, which will help to ensure that police forces can protect jobs and keep officers on the streets.

Simon Danczuk: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising Greater Manchester police, Rochdale council staff and community mediators who managed an English Defence League demonstration in Rochdale this weekend extremely effectively? It was clearly shown that Rochdale residents stayed away from the protest and that our town has no appetite for the EDL.

Theresa May: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the Greater Manchester police and the professionalism that they showed in dealing with the EDL march that took place in Rochdale at the weekend. It is in keeping with responses from police forces up and down the country to such marches. I understand that the policing operation was a success and that the demonstration took place with minimum disruption. I also join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of not only the local authority but the Rochdale community and the approach it took to ensure that the protest was largely peaceful and that there was co-operation, tolerance and restraint from community leaders.

Annette Brooke: With many councils claiming cuts in their Supporting People grants, what action will the Government take to monitor the provision of vital services, and what leadership will they give in providing services nationally?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Central Government have sent a clear message about the importance and vulnerability of the sector. To send that message and set an example, we have ring-fenced £28 million of funding for violence against women services. We hope and expect that councils will follow suit.

Yvette Cooper: Last week, the Home Secretary confirmed to the House that under her new arrangements, someone who is barred from working with children could still get a job as a voluntary teaching assistant without the school or the parents knowing that they were barred. Now that she has had a few days to think about it and about how concerned parents will be, has she changed her mind?

Theresa May: I think what matters for parents is the decisions that are made about individuals who play any part in dealing with their children, in a school or any other setting. As I made clear to the right hon. Lady last week, information that informs the decisions on barring will be available as part of the check that I would expect employers to make in such circumstances. We have a simple view: employers must take some responsibility for ensuring that they make the appropriate checks and judgments about who should be involved in dealing with children.

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Lady said last week that employers would get “exactly the same information” as the barring authorities. However, Home Office officials
	have told some people in the charities something rather different. Will she therefore confirm whether employers will be given “exactly the same information” as the barring authorities? If so, why not give them the barring authorities’ expert recommendation about whether someone should be barred? Parents want to know that the teaching assistant in their child’s classroom has not been previously barred by the experts from working with children. Safeguarding children is too important to have such loopholes. I urge her to listen to the experts and think again.

Theresa May: Of course safeguarding children is important—we all have that as top priority. Of course, the regime that is in place will in future cover those who deal with vulnerable adults as well as children. That is important. The information that informs a decision on barring will be available as part of the check so that a decision can be made. However, as the right hon. Lady has raised a query about that, I am happy to write to her with the detail on it so that she will have that to inform her questions in future.

Richard Fuller: On a similar theme, law-abiding volunteers and employees in Bedford and Kempston are quite fed up with having to get a new Criminal Records Bureau check each time they change jobs. Can the Home Secretary tell me how those checks will change to avoid that ridiculous duplication that so debilitates so many volunteers and employees?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Many people write to me about the problem of having a new CRB check on each occasion. The new system will make the check portable. An employer will be able to go online to see whether an individual, who will have a unique number, ever had any information on them and whether anything has changed since they first had a check. That will make the whole system simple and quick, which will encourage volunteering, which is part of the purpose.

Nick Smith: Given media reports that police patrols are being scaled back because of the price of fuel and that Gwent police spend £4 million on their car fleet, including fuel, what action are the Government taking to help our local police officers to keep their patrols on the road?

Nick Herbert: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s question is about fuel prices, which are not a matter for me, or taxation, or patrols. I repeat, however, that we are committed to working with police forces to maintain, and indeed to improve, the visibility and availability of police officers on patrol by making savings elsewhere in police forces.

Julian Smith: At this difficult economic time, what steps is the Minister taking to make it as straightforward as possible for British businesses to take on highly skilled foreign workers, albeit under the auspices of the immigration cap?

Damian Green: As my hon. Friend knows, we are introducing a new system for tier 1 and tier 2 for work-based visas, and at the same
	time we are speeding up the visa both for businesses and for more general visitors. The biggest single complaint has been about the delays in the issuing of visas. I am happy to assure him that we are concerned about that. We are already beginning to see improvements, so that in many of the key markets where we need to operate our visa system is working better than ever before, and we are meeting our service standards.

Fiona Mactaggart: When responding to an earlier question on the trafficking strategy, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), said that it would include elements of prevention, action on the border and policing. Does she recognise that a very important element of any anti-trafficking strategy is victim care, and that victim care is usually provided by voluntary organisations? The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the chair of the all-party group on human trafficking, spoke of a big society solution. Can we have a big society participation in the anti-trafficking strategy?

Lynne Featherstone: I think we would encourage the big society to get involved at all levels, but as the hon. Lady says, victim care is extremely important. We are providing accommodation and advocacy and all the things that are necessary to help the unfortunate victims of trafficking out of their terrible situation.

David Ruffley: The previous Government’s figures demonstrate that only one hour in seven was spent on patrol by the average patrol officer. Given the Government’s anti-bureaucracy reforms, will the Home Secretary advise us on her view of the number of hours the average patrol officer will spend on the beat?

Theresa May: We are absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in response to a previous question, that we want the visibility and availability of police officers to increase and improve. The latest figures from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary show that 11% of officers are visible and available at any one time—[ Interruption. ] Before we get chuntering from Opposition Members, that is not to say that other police officers are wasting their time—of course they are not—but visibility and availability need to improve.

Linda Riordan: Hundreds of my constituents have signed a petition supporting the reopening to the public of Sowerby Bridge police station. Will the Minister urgently consider the matter, because it is at the very heart of the community and would play a huge role in preventing and tackling crime in the area?

Nick Herbert: We do not directly control whether police stations are open—that is a matter for the chief constable and the police authority—but there are other ways in which the police can improve their visibility to the public. For instance, they can set up bases in supermarkets. It is not just about buildings; they can also share facilities with other organisations. However, these are matters for chief constables to decide as they find effective ways to be visible in their communities.

Duncan Hames: In the past six weeks, the Minister for Immigration has answered about 50 statistical questions from Members, including me. I say “answered”, but in two thirds of these cases, it was not possible for him to provide sound information, either because the data were not recorded or because they were not quality assured and may not have withstood typical audit scrutiny. What assessment has he made of the quality of management information in the UK Border Agency?

Damian Green: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is exactly right. Where an answer makes it clear that the information is management information, it simply means that the data are not Office for National Statistics-quality statistics. However, those answers will include statistical information, even though it might be slightly rough and ready, precisely because I am determined, when we have the information available, to make it available to hon. Members as part of the Government’s commitment to transparency.

Chi Onwurah: Northumbria police force is losing more than 1,000 jobs, including 300 front-line police. As a result, young recruits promised a job last year have now been told that those jobs are no longer available. What guarantee, therefore, can the Secretary of State offer to the people of the north-east that crime will not rise as a result of the cuts? Furthermore, how can she reassure those who have worked so hard to win a job that they will be prioritised—

Mr Speaker: Order. One question must be enough, because other people are waiting.

Theresa May: I refer the hon. Lady to the response given by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to an earlier question on this matter. The Government have made it absolutely clear that there is no simple link between levels of crime and the number of police officers. Indeed, that view has been supported by a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

Paul Maynard: Will the Minister responsible for antisocial behaviour assure me—in relation to the review he will be conducting—that when antisocial behaviour is aggravated by the victim’s disability, it will be taken into account when considering the severity of the disposal?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue, which is at the heart of the call handling pilots launched at the start of the year to identify vulnerability, and to ensure that there is better join-up between the police, local authorities and the health service in order to ensure that where there are specific issues, they are identified more speedily and more effectively. Bullying and intimidation linked to disabilities are utterly reprehensible and unacceptable, and the system needs to improve to identify where these problems are occurring.

Tom Greatrex: Will the Minister inform the House of when his Department intends to review the current definition of an air weapon under the Firearms Act 1968?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee has produced its report on firearms generally. We are still considering the issue and will respond to the report in due course.

Amber Rudd: Residents of Hastings and Rye warmly welcome the additional information from the crime and policing website, but is the Home Secretary aware of the additional service it provides to women who may be coming home late at night and might feel vulnerable? That is particularly important ahead of international women’s day tomorrow.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I am pleased to tell her that I was able to join the Prime Minister in meeting a group of readers from Company magazine recently who were raising exactly the problems of women walking home at night. I was able to point them to the crime maps as a useful tool.

Ian Lavery: Will the Minister confirm that the police officers working in Northumbria force’s public protection units dealing with serious crime such as child abuse and domestic crime are classified as front-line police officers?

Nick Herbert: Yes.

Chris Skidmore: This morning I attended the opening of the Kingswood one-stop shop, which includes a fixed police presence. It is the first time that the police have had a base in Kingswood since the previous Government closed the local police station. Will the Minister commend South Gloucestershire council and Avon and Somerset police for their collaborative working to ensure that front-line services are protected, and further consider how police authorities and local councils can work together to ensure that services are shared for public benefit?

Nick Herbert: I thank my hon. Friend. That provides a very good example of innovative ways of working that can increase the visibility of policing, and the co-operation between the police force and other agencies provides a perfect example of the way we need to go.

Paul Goggins: When asked to justify the cuts to policing in Greater Manchester, the Minister for Policing, and Criminal Justice said that cuts could be made to the back office. May I tell him that at least 1,600 police staff are being made redundant in Greater Manchester on top of the 1,377 uniformed officers? I ask him again how he can justify that.

Theresa May: We are looking to police forces first and foremost to take cuts in the back office, but that is not just about individuals; it is about improving procurement and collaborating with other forces to make savings. Significant sums of money—hundreds of millions of pounds—can be saved by better procurement, better IT services and collaboration between forces.

Greg Mulholland: It is clear from my own experience of Leeds Rhinos and
	its legal firm Chadwick Lawrence that the current immigration system for foreign international sports people is inherently biased against rugby league players. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Rugby Football League to look at the criteria, so that this problem—

Mr Speaker: We would be even more grateful for a reply so that we can move on.

Damian Green: I would, of course, be happy to be enlightened about the immigration system as it affects rugby league.

Libya and the Middle East

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on developments in Libya and the middle east since the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday 28 February.
	Members on all sides of the House will be concerned by the violence in Libya. The Gaddafi regime is launching military counter-attacks against opposition forces. There has been intense fighting in the east and centre of the country along the coastal strip between the opposition-held Ras Lanuf and the Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte. There are credible reports of the use of helicopter gunships against civilians by Government forces and unconfirmed reports of a helicopter and jet shot down over Ras Lanuf. There have also been serious attacks against the cities of Zawiyah and Misrata in the west by soldiers backed up by anti-aircraft guns and by tanks. Many of those taken to the city’s hospital, including a young boy of 10, have wounds to the head, neck and chest; and supplies of food, fuel and medicines have been all but cut off.
	In Tripoli, there have been disturbing reports of hostage taking and large military deployments around the city designed to consolidate Gaddafi’s position and intimidate his opponents. His forces remain in control of Tripoli, Sabha and Sirte, but his authority is contested in large swathes of the country where local tribes have withdrawn their support. There is a clear risk of protracted conflict and an extremely dangerous and volatile situation in large parts of the country.
	Our position is that Colonel Gaddafi must put an immediate stop to the use of armed force against civilians and hand over power without delay to a Government who recognise the aspirations of the Libyan people and are more representative and accountable.
	On 5 March, opposition groups in the east formed an interim national council based in Benghazi. Ministers and FCO officials are in contact with members of this council, who welcomed the idea of a British diplomatic mission to Libya. This engagement is vital in gaining a better understanding of the political, military and humanitarian situation on the ground.
	Last week, I authorised the dispatch of a small British diplomatic team to eastern Libya in uncertain circumstances, which we judged required protection, to build on these initial contacts and to assess the scope for closer diplomatic dialogue. I pay tribute to that team. It was withdrawn yesterday after a serious misunderstanding about its role, leading to its temporary detention. This situation was resolved and it was able to meet council president, Mr Abdul-Jalil. However, it was clearly better for this team to be withdrawn. We intend to send further diplomats to eastern Libya in due course.
	The safety of British nationals in Libya remains an important priority. Since the Prime Minister’s statement, the UK military have undertaken a further two evacuation operations from the port of Benghazi, with HMS Cumberland and HMS York both evacuating British nationals and foreign citizens. In total, we have evacuated more than 600 British nationals from Libya, as well as nationals from many other countries. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to all those involved.
	We are aware of about 180 British nationals still in Libya, some of whom—including some journalists—have told us that they currently intend to stay. We continue to provide assistance and information for those who wish to leave. We are also working with other countries to isolate the regime, and to ensure that anyone responsible for abuses or contemplating further crimes knows that there will be a day of reckoning.
	On Thursday, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced his investigation of alleged crimes in Libya, following referral by the UN Security Council. We welcome that swift action, and will do all that we can to assist. We also welcome the important decision by the UN General Assembly, following referral by the UN Human Rights Council, to suspend Libya’s membership of the council. European Union sanctions on Libya came into full force last Thursday. That was the quickest-ever delivery of an EU sanctions package, and it goes beyond the sanctions imposed by the UN. It includes an arms embargo on Libya, and an assets freeze and visa ban on Gaddafi and 25 of his associates—strong foundations on which we can build.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we are making contingency plans for all eventualities in Libya. NATO has been tasked to work on a range of options, including the possible establishment of a no-fly zone, the evacuation of civilians, international humanitarian assistance, and support for the international arms embargo. There will be further NATO meetings this week. At the UN Security Council, we are working closely with partners, on a contingency basis, on elements of a resolution on a no-fly zone, making clear the need for regional support, a clear trigger for such a resolution, and an appropriate legal basis.
	My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary visited Tunisia on Friday to assess the humanitarian situation. The UK has flown in blankets for 38,000 people and tents for over 10,000 people, and has sent aeroplanes to repatriate more than 6,000 stranded Egyptians and 500 Bangladeshis. This remains primarily a logistical emergency, but it is essential that international agencies are provided with unfettered access to help to prevent the development of a humanitarian crisis. With our support, the UN’s emergency co-ordinator, Baroness Amos, convened a special meeting in Geneva today to call for unfettered humanitarian access inside Libya. HMS York has also delivered 1.3 tonnes of Swedish medical supplies to Benghazi.
	The Prime Minister will attend an emergency meeting of the European Council on 11 March, this Friday. We will use the Council to press for further action in response to the situation in Libya, and—as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in Brussels last week—we will also urge the European Union to change radically its thinking about its neighbourhood. As I agreed with the French Foreign Minister in Paris on Thursday, it is time for European nations to be bold and ambitious, and to show that while Europe will not seek to dictate how these countries should run their affairs, we will always be the lasting friend of those who put in place the building blocks of strong civil societies, economic openness and political freedom. We must give every incentive to countries in the region to make decisions that bring freedom and prosperity. At the Council meeting, the Prime Minister will call for Europe to set out a programme to bring down trade barriers, to establish
	clearer conditions for the help that it provides, and to marshal its resources to act as a magnet for positive change in the region.
	The G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting will take place in Paris next week. It will provide a further opportunity to widen the international coalition addressing the crisis in Libya; to underline with the United States, Russia and others the urgency of progress on the middle east peace process and on Iran’s nuclear programme; and to reaffirm our collective support for political transition in Egypt and Tunisia and democratic reform in the wider region.
	There has been welcome progress towards democratic transition in Egypt and Tunisia. There has also been further progress, including the announcement of a national referendum on constitutional reform in Egypt and of a date for elections in Tunisia. However, the resignations of the Prime Ministers of both Governments show that significant challenges remain. There continues to be instability in other countries, including Yemen. We have changed our travel advice: we now advise against all travel to the whole country, and recommend that British nationals without a pressing need to remain in Yemen leave using commercial means. We look to Governments across the region to respect human rights, including the right to peaceful protest, to avoid the use of force and to respond to legitimate aspirations for greater political openness and economic reform.
	It remains more vital than ever that we press for a just and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We want to see an urgent return to negotiations, based on clear parameters, including the 1967 borders. We will work with all the parties to press for a decisive breakthrough this year. President Abbas is visiting the UK this week. I will discuss these issues with him tomorrow, when I will also confirm that, given the extent of our aid to the Palestinian Authority and our work with them, we will join many other countries in upgrading the status of the Palestinian delegation to London to the level of a mission.
	If change and development can be achieved peacefully in the middle east, that will be the greatest advance in world affairs since central and eastern Europe changed so dramatically 20 years ago and many of those countries entered the European Union. If not, this could mark the start of even greater instability emanating from the region. It is vital for the people of these countries and the rest of the world that the international community play a coherent and ambitious role in supporting their aspirations. The British Government are deeply committed to that endeavour, and I commend this statement to the House.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance sight of his statement today. I am grateful to him for his update on the situation in Libya and across the region.
	First, let me begin by paying tribute to the bravery of the units of our armed forces that have operated in Libya during this crisis. Specifically, I praise their extraction of British nationals from the oilfields of Libya two weeks ago. This was done with an effectiveness and professionalism that is rightly seen as typical of Britain’s armed forces. Secondly, let me say to the Foreign Secretary that I appreciate just how tough this situation is. There is no manual for handling a wave of revolt in a tumultuous
	region. The tempo of change in the middle east and north Africa has hardly slowed in more than an month, and none of the policy challenges or ministerial judgments thrown up be these events is straightforward or easy.
	On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to add my support and welcome for the Foreign Secretary’s announcement that the status of the Palestinian delegation in London is to be upgraded. He can rely on our support as he continues to make the case for renewed urgency in efforts to bring about real and meaningful negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
	Let me turn to the events of yesterday. I believe that I speak for many when I say that the news on Sunday that British diplomatic and military personnel were being held was seen as just the latest setback for the United Kingdom, and that it raises further serious questions about Ministers’ grip on and response to the unfolding events in Libya. First, we had the still unexplained decision by the Foreign Secretary, alone among European Foreign Ministers, to publicise reports that Gaddafi was already on his way to Venezuela. Then, the Foreign Office was late in securing charter flights and even in convening the Government’s emergency Committee, Cobra, when hundreds of UK nationals were stranded and clearly in danger. Then, last week, the option of a no-fly zone was first talked up and then talked down, with the US Defence Secretary warning against loose talk on the issue. Twice in as many weeks—after the events of this weekend, and following the flights fiasco—ministerial decisions have generated an embarrassment that could all too easily have become a tragedy.
	Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Benghazi courthouse that is serving as the headquarters of the interim national council is but 2 miles from where HMS Cumberland was berthed yesterday afternoon? Secondly, will he confirm that the Royal Marines have, on several occasions in recent days, assisted EU nationals from Benghazi on to royal naval warships in the area?
	The Foreign Secretary has confirmed today that he personally authorised this mission. Given the outcome of the effort, will he now tell us whether he discussed the merits or demerits of the proposed course of action with senior officials? Did he discuss alternative means of achieving the mission’s aim with his senior officials ahead of his decision being taken? In particular, did he discuss the mission with the Prime Minister in advance of his decision to authorise it?
	Will the Foreign Secretary share with the House his assessment of the impact of this weekend’s events on the credibility of British foreign policy with the Gaddafi regime in Tripoli and the opposition forces in Benghazi? Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has read the question asked by a spokesman for the opposition forces in today’s edition of The Times. Let me quote his words directly:
	“If this is an official delegation why did they come with a helicopter? Why didn’t they [inform the revolutionary council] that ‘we are coming, we’d like to land at Benina airport’, or come through Egypt like all the journalists have done”.
	Given those remarks, does the Foreign Secretary accept that if some new neighbours moved into his street, the British public would be entitled to wonder whether he would introduce himself by ringing the doorbell, or instead choose to climb over the fence in the middle of the night?
	The Opposition support the Government’s aim of establishing a dialogue with Gaddafi’s opponents. We welcome today’s statement that further efforts will be made to engage with the opposition forces now running parts of Libya, but our welcome to that initiative is conditional, for it should be done in a considered, co-ordinated way with our European and NATO allies. The strategic objectives for the west—sustaining pressure on the regime; helping and where we can protecting the Libyan population; and over time working to assist in ensuring that popular revolt becomes more democratic government—do not divide this House.
	This week’s meetings of the European Union and NATO remain opportunities to co-ordinate the international response and increase pressure on Gaddafi. May I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary whether he would consider requesting that the Arab League attend Friday’s EU summit, to signal clearly the breadth of international pressure, in the region and beyond, on the Gaddafi regime? That meeting will also be vital in shaping the humanitarian response. We of course welcome the work undertaken by the Department for International Development and the visit that the Secretary of State for International Development recently paid, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will update the House on the work being done across Government to support a multilateral response though the World Food Programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and indeed the Commonwealth.
	The EU summit can do more in sharpening the choice for Gaddafi’s supporters, explicitly stating that assistance will be available to a post-Gaddafi Libya in tackling trade barriers and supporting democratic progress. The summit can be equally explicit to those fighting for Gaddafi: those who leave his forces should be confident about the treatment that they will receive, while officers and mercenaries who stick with him should know that they will face serious consequences in future. At the NATO meeting this week the Secretary of State for Defence will have our support for considering the available contingencies. All options should remain on the table, given the need to sustain pressure on the regime.
	Given that it remains uncertain whether this wave of revolt is over—we continue to hear talk of protests in countries beyond Tunisia, Libya and Egypt—can we be confident that lessons are being learned by Ministers about the serial bungling that we have seen in recent weeks? That is what the British people want, and that is what they deserve.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for much of what he said. He pays tribute to the bravery of the troops involved in extracting people from the oilfields two weekends ago, and he is absolutely right to do so. I welcome his welcome for the upgrading of the status of the Palestinian delegation. It is good that that is supported across the House.
	There is clearly a good deal of agreement too on the overall outlines of western policy in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman stated, as we have, that all options should remain on the table. He underlined the importance of working closely with the Arab League, which should be continued in many different forms. I do not know whether that will be possible at the European Council
	this week, but we are in close touch with many of those Arab nations about all the options that may be necessary over the coming weeks and months. Close consultation and co-ordination with those nations will need to continue.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multilateral aspects of humanitarian aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in continuous close touch with Baroness Amos and all the organisations and people the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and others. We will keep up that work, including on co-ordinating our humanitarian and logistical assistance with France—we have co-ordinated it to a degree—which has also worked well.
	The right hon. Gentleman also asked about matters that were raised in the House last Monday, so I will not go over all of them again, except to say this on his question about whether there has been a variation in policy on the no-fly zone and whether our policy is out of step with that of other nations: the policy is exactly as stated by the Prime Minister here at the Dispatch Box last Monday, which is that contingency planning should be done for a no-fly zone. It is exactly the same position as that expressed by Secretary Clinton last week, and exactly the same as that expressed by the French Government, as the French Foreign Minister and I made clear at our press conference last week. I think from what the right hon. Gentleman says that it also enjoys the support of the Opposition in this House, so I think we are aligned on this policy.
	On the deployment in Benghazi, the factual points the right hon. Gentleman stated in his question are correct. On consultation with officials and who decided what and so on, we should be clear that when our staff go into a potentially dangerous situation, a level of protection is provided for them, based on professional and military advice. We do that in many places around the world, and it was, of course, important to do so in this situation. As I explained, I authorised such a mission to be made to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya with protection. Of course, the timing and details of that are operational matters decided by the professionals, but Ministers must have confidence in their judgments, as I do, and must take full ministerial responsibility for all their actions and judgments, as, of course, I do. The Prime Minister and other Ministers were of course aware that we would attempt to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya.
	On the overall impact of British foreign policy on the Gaddafi regime and others, they are aware, as is much of the world, that we have led the way at the United Nations Security Council and drafted the resolution that was passed last weekend, that we led the way at the UN Human Rights Council, gathering the signatures that led to the suspension of Libya, and that we are at the forefront both of implementing the assets freeze and other measures that are putting pressure on the regime and of getting the message through in Libya that reference has been made to the International Criminal Court. The impact of British foreign policy on this situation and on the Gaddafi regime is extremely powerful, and that is how it will remain.

Malcolm Rifkind: Having as Defence Secretary helped to enforce the no-fly zone on Iraq to protect the Shia and the Kurds, I am well aware
	of the important benefits this can produce in the right circumstances, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that to take forward proposals for a no-fly zone in Libya two fundamental conditions must be satisfied: first, the United Nations Security Council must give explicit endorsement for such an operation; and, secondly, there must be unambiguous evidence that the Libyan revolutionary council representing the insurgents actually wants the very substantial degree of western military involvement that a no-fly zone would represent, because there is clear indication that many of them believe that Libyans should liberate their own country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this proposal is unlikely to go anywhere until and unless these two conditions are satisfied?

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct that all the contacts we have had with opposition forces in Libya suggest that they believe Libyans should be responsible for liberating their country. However, it is also only fair to point out that in those conversations they have already explicitly asked for a no-fly zone, and they do not see a contradiction between those two points.
	My right hon. and learned Friend is right that many conditions should be attached to trying to implement a no-fly zone. The way I would state them at this moment is: there should be a demonstrable need that the whole world can see; there must be a clear legal basis for such a no-fly zone; and there must be clear support from the region—from the middle east and north African region—as well as from the people of Libya themselves, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. Those are the necessary conditions for such a no-fly zone to be created.

Jack Straw: In my experience of operations such as the one at the weekend, there was always an impressive level of operational detail in the submissions that came to me as Secretary of State and to the then Defence Secretary, because it is not the concept that could go wrong but the operational detail. Does the Secretary of State have any reason to believe that less detail is provided to this Administration than was provided to the previous one?

William Hague: No, absolutely not. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the level of detail normally provided. These operations vary enormously in their nature and the level of detail provided, but I have no reason to think that there would, in general, be a difference.

Menzies Campbell: There is much in the Foreign Secretary’s statement to be welcomed, but I regret what I am about to say. Is it not clear that this mission was ill conceived, poorly planned and embarrassingly executed? What is he going to do to restore the United Kingdom’s reputation in relation to foreign policy in the middle east, what will be the role of any further mission and what permissions will it seek before it goes?

William Hague: As I said, the United Kingdom, having led the way in so many of the ways I have described at the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, is in the forefront of western policy on this issue. Clearly, further contacts with the opposition in eastern Libya are necessary and desirable, for all the reasons that I set out in my statement. The opposition there has made it
	clear that it would welcome such contact, so it is important for that to go ahead. Clearly, it must go ahead on a very different basis from that on which it went ahead last week, and that is what we will set about.

Bob Ainsworth: Will the Foreign Secretary do nothing more to give the impression to the British public that what is under consideration is about being seen to be doing something, rather than about doing something? Will he do absolutely nothing—he has recognised this in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—to undermine not only the impression but the priority for the Libyan opposition to be at the forefront of this? This should not be about some desire of the United Kingdom Government.

William Hague: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In all the countries witnessing great change it is important that the solutions are owned by the people. That is why we have said that it is important that all the assistance that we provide and that we are calling on the European Union to provide is given in a way that is not patronising towards such countries, but does help to provide some of the necessary incentives to get them to move in the direction that we would consider—greater economic openness and political reform. That is true in Libya, too, and I am sure that Libyans are determined, as we should be, that they also own the solution to this. At the same time, the whole world has humanitarian responsibilities—the United Nations has, of course, a responsibility to protect—so we have to balance those against the consideration that he rightly points to.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. More than 50 right hon. and hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. If I am to have any realistic chance of accommodating them, as I usually strive to do, brevity is of the essence.

Richard Ottaway: Further to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) on no-fly zones, on the two recent occasions when it has been tried—in Bosnia and in Iraq—such zones did not turn out to be effective and the intervention of ground troops was needed before the situation on the ground was resolved. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it makes sense to bear that in mind before making such an operational decision?

William Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasons why I said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that one of the criteria should be demonstrable need. If one was to consider implementing a no-fly zone, one would have to ensure that it would actually make a difference to the situation. The demonstrable need must be there if we are to consider doing it.

Denis MacShane: Since this crisis started, I have been reading The New York Times and European papers, and watching al-Jazeera, and the notion that Britain is seen as the leader in this crisis exists only in the Foreign Secretary’s head. Last week,
	to restore the good name of the London School of Economics, Sir Howard Davies did the honourable British thing and accepted his responsibilities. Has the Foreign Secretary considered his position at all?

William Hague: As I have said, I take full ministerial responsibility, as Ministers do. I believe very strongly in the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for everything that happens in a Minister’s Department, so I am very clear about that. We have been busy drafting the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council while the right hon. Gentleman has been struggling to read the newspapers from around Europe.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the British Government and our partners are to be able to take the kind of difficult decisions that will be needed in the next few weeks, intelligence and information on the ground are of the first importance? Will he therefore reassure the House that whatever action is taken to secure that intelligence and information will not impede the deployment of British assets?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely—I certainly give that assurance.

Ben Bradshaw: If the object of the mission was to make contact with the leaders of free Libya, why did those involved not go straight into Benghazi, as scores of international journalists have done? Does that not illustrate a lack of grip and competence right at the heart of government?

William Hague: As I explained earlier, in answer to the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), whenever we deploy diplomats in a dangerous situation, we provide a level of protection based on professional and military advice. We do that in several other countries, so it is not an unusual thing to have to do, and we did it on this occasion too.

John Redwood: Before considering any military intervention, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he is aware that when intervening in a civil war, it is all too easy to kill the people one is trying to help?

William Hague: Direct intervention in these situations is, of course, a momentous thing that must be considered carefully from every possible angle, and my right hon. Friend points to another angle that we have to consider. It is important to stress that the contingency planning that we have asked for in NATO does not constitute such direct intervention in a civil war, or near civil war, but involves the consideration of measures to protect the civilian population and the provision of humanitarian assistance if necessary. That is different from directly intervening in a conflict.

Angus Robertson: The latest report of the UN Refugee Agency says that 170,000 people have fled to neighbouring countries, mostly to Egypt and Tunisia. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Black Watch is currently on stand-by to assist in
	supporting humanitarian efforts? Given its potential deployment, does he agree that now is not the time to consider closing its home barracks at Fort George outside Inverness?

William Hague: It is probably beyond the scope of this statement to go into the last point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but he is right to point to the huge numbers of people involved. The latest figures that I have seen show that more than 200,000 people have passed those borders. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary stresses that, at the moment, this is a logistical crisis of getting people to where they need to be, rather than what we would term a humanitarian crisis. Clearly, if the conflict in Libya becomes even more protracted and violent, such a humanitarian crisis may develop on top of that. That is why we are seeking to help and why we are already engaged in helping. Yes, the Black Watch would be available to assist with such humanitarian activity, but that is why it is on that degree of stand-by.

Margot James: Does my right hon. Friend agree that strong civil societies with democratic freedoms will come about in the middle east and north Africa only if there is greater equality for women in those countries? Will his Department work with the Department for International Development to support all the efforts that will bring that end about?

William Hague: Yes, I think that is absolutely right. We have to work with people in those societies without us in the western world telling them what to do. We have to work with the grain of their cultures and traditions, but the building up of civil society, improvements in human rights and the development of more open political activity should—certainly in my view and clearly in my hon. Friend’s view too—include a much increased role for women in those societies. That is something that, in the right way, we should certainly promote.

Tony Lloyd: The Foreign Secretary does not need me to tell him that when we engage in the kind of operations that took place over recent days, there is risk a to serving British service people, as well as to those with whom they come into contact. That must be proportionate. In this case, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that what appears to have ended in farce could not have ended in tragedy?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman points to an important fact. There are risks involved in many of the things that we have to do in such situations. There were risks involved in what happened the previous weekend in the rescue of oil workers from the desert. One of those flights was engaged with small arms fire when it landed in the desert, so yes, there are risks involved, and it is precisely because there are risks involved in the deployment of our staff in such situations that we act on professional and military advice to give them protection.

Bob Stewart: I speak as someone who has operated underneath a rather ineffective no-fly zone. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if we get involved in a no-fly zone, we will be prepared to bring down aircraft and helicopters, and even strike anti-aircraft assets in the sovereign territory of Libya?

William Hague: For a no-fly zone to be implemented, it would clearly have to be effective, as well as to have the demonstrable need that I spoke about earlier. My hon. Friend is getting me into matters that are properly for the contingency planning that is now being done in NATO. Those are matters to be scoped out in any planning for a no-fly zone, and in consultation with other countries beyond NATO as well.

Gisela Stuart: It is useful to follow the previous question, because my question is about hitherto unsuccessful no-fly zones, where the confusion between military and humanitarian aid caused undue problems. In his contingency planning, is the Foreign Secretary planning to distinguish strictly between those areas still controlled by Colonel Gaddafi, which would therefore not receive humanitarian aid, and those controlled by the rebellion, which would receive it, or is he not prepared to make such a distinction?

William Hague: There is a range of options to be considered, and the hon. Lady draws attention to how many different ways one can look at the issue. Those different options need to be examined. NATO Defence Ministers will be able to discuss the matter later in the week, so I cannot give a specific answer now to her question. All those considerations will be taken into account.

Bernard Jenkin: May I urge my right hon. Friend to take credit for the operations that go right, as well as responsibility for the operations that go wrong? May I remind him of the aftermath of the first Gulf war, when the fatal error was to allow Saddam Hussein to fly his helicopters to oppress his own people again? The Government are right to lead the debate about a no-fly zone, which is gaining support among voices in the United States, as well as from France.

William Hague: Yes, I take the point that my hon. Friend makes and I am grateful for his support for the position that we have taken on contingency planning. On the question of taking credit for what goes right as well as blame for what goes wrong, having in the past led the Conservative party for four years, I have never heard of that notion before.

David Winnick: Up to about a fortnight ago, we were busy selling arms to Gaddafi’s bloodstained regime. Does the Foreign Secretary understand that there is a great divide between giving humanitarian aid to the victims of Gaddafi’s regime, and military intervention? On the latter, there seems to be in the House and certainly in the country at large—and I believe it is the right attitude to take—no appetite for military intervention in Libya.

William Hague: We will not take too many lectures from the Opposition on the issue of selling things to the Gaddafi regime or wider issues of policy towards Libya, but of course there is a difference between humanitarian assistance and direct military intervention. As I explained earlier, the options that we are asking NATO to look at are essentially options to protect the civilian population or to deliver the necessary humanitarian assistance. That is different from direct military intervention.

Robert Halfon: Following the scandal of the financial links between Libya and the London School of Economics and other British universities, will the Foreign Secretary examine what the previous Labour Government did to help facilitate those links? Does he not agree that the fish rots from the head down, and will he hold an independent inquiry to examine the previous Government’s insidious links with Libya?

William Hague: I am sure that there will be lessons to be learned from that. We are a little preoccupied with what is going on at the moment, but there will be a time to learn all the lessons from past relationships with some of the systems and regimes now being overthrown by their own people.

Rushanara Ali: In the light of the tragic deaths of three Bangladeshi nationals during a repatriation mission from Libya, what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of all those being repatriated? What further assistance will the UK Government provide to support and repatriate those stranded in neighbouring countries?

William Hague: We will continue to provide support as necessary. All accidents in these situations, and certainly deaths, are very regrettable, as we would agree immediately across the House. We have assisted in the evacuation of more than 500 Bangladeshis and more than 6,000 Egyptians. In doing so, their safety is the paramount concern—it is for their safety that we are undertaking the operation in the first place. The hon. Lady can rest assured that the utmost care is being taken. We cannot guarantee that no accidents will happen, but great care is taken and will continue to be taken in the operations.

Edward Leigh: Realistically, given our resources, or lack thereof, surely there is no way we can or should take the lead in a no-fly zone. Indeed, will my right hon. Friend accept that after two interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the British public have not the slightest appetite for getting involved militarily in a third Muslim country?

William Hague: As I have said, what are not being actively introduced at the moment, but for which we want to do the contingency planning, are measures to protect the civilian population or deliver humanitarian assistance where it is needed. There might be an appetite for that if there is a demonstrable need. I set out several criteria earlier, and any action along those lines should be judged against them. Several hon. Members have drawn attention to previous no-fly zones and conflicts. Should we learn lessons from what has happened? Yes, we certainly should.

Frank Roy: Two weeks ago, we witnessed the debacle of the Foreign Office trying to arrange a Tripoli airport rescue mission, and last week the Prime Minister refused to rule out arming rebel groups in Libya, and those are the same groups that held our diplomats and soldiers over the weekend. Can the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that this week will not be the third week of disasters by the Government?

William Hague: If it is a protracted conflict that goes on for some time, it will throw up many challenges in addition to those we have already faced. Some of those
	are diplomatic, and as I have said the UK has led the way on that. Some are humanitarian, and the UK is playing a leading role in that, as we have discussed. There are other areas where we have certainly had difficulties, such as those of a couple of weeks ago to which the hon. Gentleman refers. On the other hand, after those difficulties we have pulled out and evacuated British nationals, ahead of many other nations, and helped people of about 30 other nationalities to leave Libya during our operations. Perhaps he should take a lesson from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and acknowledge that although not everything goes right, the UK has done many things properly and well over the past few weeks.

Rory Stewart: There are many non-violent options that have not yet been explored. May I please encourage my right hon. Friend to look in particular at the formation, under chapter 7, of an escrow account for Libyan oil revenues in trust for the Libyan people and apart from the Gaddafi regime?

William Hague: Yes, we continue to look at other options on top of the asset freeze and the measures we have already taken. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the measures we took to stop the delivery of what has added up to about £1 billion in bank notes to the Gaddafi regime. We continue to look at other ways to reduce the financial flows to the Gaddafi regime that might be used to support the violence and attempts to suppress the civilian population’s protests, of which we have all heard and some of which I have described. We will certainly be looking at that kind of measure.

Barry Gardiner: Who, if anyone, did the diplomatic mission believe it had arranged to see, what did it think was the agreed agenda, and why were the missionaries issued with multiple identities and passports?

William Hague: As I have explained, the missionaries were to make contact with opposition groups in Libya in order to assess the humanitarian situation there, and it will be necessary to have further diplomatic presence and diplomatic contact in order to do that. I am not going into further operational details about that for entirely obvious reasons: other missions sometimes take place in other parts of the world. The mission under consideration met the president of the national council that the opposition have formed, and that is the basis for further contact between the United Kingdom and those opposition groups.

Duncan Hames: I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could elaborate on that point. I am keen to know what direct contact either our embassy or his other officials have established with the chair of the national Libyan council, Mustapha Abdul-Jalil.

William Hague: The diplomatic team that was there at the weekend did have a meeting with him, and we have had a range of contacts with other figures in the opposition. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that several figures have defected from the Gaddafi regime to the opposition, and I have spoken to some of them myself, including General Younis, one of the Ministers who took some of
	the special forces over to the other side in Libya, so our contact has been with Mr Jalil, that particular general and other figures among the opposition forces in eastern Libya.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Foreign Secretary obviously has a huge area of responsibility, but I am very surprised that in his statement he said very little about the crying need for human rights and justice in Saudi Arabia, and nothing about the ongoing crisis in Bahrain. The contagion throughout north Africa of the thirst for democracy, liberty and human rights is universal, and the Government should recognise it as such. It is actually more important than selling arms.

William Hague: It is true, of course, that it would be possible to make a much longer statement about the situation in the middle east, but it might be necessary for Ministers to make statements over many months, going into the details of many countries, so of course I recognise that it is possible to say more about those situations. I referred to them in my statement—where we called for people to be able to protest peacefully. It is also important that, where protests occur, policing techniques are used that allow for peaceful protest and, wherever possible, do not encourage or lead to violence. That is a message we convey to all nations, as well as the message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed in his speech in the Kuwaiti Parliament, calling on all nations in the region to respect legitimate aspirations for economic development and more open and flexible political systems.

Julian Lewis: Do events in Libya and the middle east carry any lessons at all for the Government, given the talk about possible British participation in no-fly zones and the decision to stand down the carriers and the Harriers that would be essential to carry out any such operation?

William Hague: It is not true that such facilities are necessary to implement a no-fly zone, because, in the case of Libya, ground bases are available and no nation has used an aircraft carrier for the recent evacuation of their citizens. The United Kingdom still has and will continue to have formidable military assets, including in air power. We are a part of the contingency planning for what might happen, but it would not be necessary to have an aircraft carrier to execute such a plan.

Sandra Osborne: In acknowledging the difficulty of deciding how best to protect the Libyan people, I wonder what discussions the Foreign Secretary had with our partners in view of the danger and the potentially counter-productive nature of the mission.

William Hague: We have discussions with our partners in NATO and in the European Union, and indeed more broadly in the Arab world, about this entire crisis, about the future of Libya and about the future of the entire region. Obviously, the mission into eastern Libya that we are describing was a United Kingdom-only mission, and not subject to discussion with other nations.

Andrew Murrison: If the European External Action Service has a point, it is surely to engage in a timely fashion in its very near
	abroad. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any action being taken by Baroness Ashton in advance of this Friday’s meeting beyond cancelling a few visas and imposing a few trade sanctions?

William Hague: Baroness Ashton has recently visited a number of states in the region, including Egypt and Tunisia. It will be important for the European Union, including Baroness Ashton and her organisation, to play a role in what we are calling on the European Union to do in changing its policy to one of greater openness towards the countries of north Africa and to providing incentives for them to move towards economic openness and political reform. I hope that all the nations of the European Union, and its organs, will take part in that.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Secretary of State spoke earlier about the plight of refugees. Up until the middle of last week, 10,000 to 15,000 people were crossing the border into Tunisia on a daily basis. Since then, that number has dropped dramatically, and on Thursday only 2,000 refugees crossed the border. UNHCR has expressed concerns that people are being prevented from leaving Libya. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of this drop in numbers, and to whom has he spoken to help to inform that assessment?

William Hague: That is a very good point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has expressed the very same concern. A variety of things may be happening in this regard. Most of the people who have left have been migrant workers from other countries, and so it is possible that the numbers who remain are diminishing. It is also possible that the extent of the fighting that is taking place is making it harder for people to leave, or that they are being discouraged from leaving. My right hon. Friend is assessing that with his international partners and multilateral organisations. It is difficult for us to know exactly what is happening on the ground, but we will continue to assess it.

Julian Brazier: May I congratulate the Government and the armed forces on the successful evacuation of thousands of people by sea and air under very difficult circumstances? May I also, though, caution my right hon. Friend that humanitarian aid supported by military means is very unlikely to be seen in that way by the protagonists in a civil war?

William Hague: Yes, I entirely take my hon. Friend’s word of caution; he is quite right to point that out. If we came to the point of thinking that that might be necessary, it would be a difficult decision to take. As the Prime Minister made clear last Monday, it is also right to do the contingency planning about many of the options that might have to be taken in a whole variety of circumstances. However, I stress to my hon. Friend that this is contingency planning rather than a decision to undertake the kind of operation that he is concerned about.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is good that the Foreign Secretary is admitting that the mission failed, and of course it must be right to protect our diplomats in the way that he outlined. However, was not the mission always going to fail given that people arrived,
	unannounced, in a helicopter full of military equipment in such a volatile situation? What does he think of the role of our ambassador in the conversation that was reported by Colonel Gaddafi and the relationship between the two ambassadors, when the ambassador himself did not know what was going on?

William Hague: Of course, there are many telephone conversations going on. I myself speak to people on both sides of the divide in Libya, including to the Libyan Foreign Minister, Musa Kusa, who is still part of the Gaddafi regime. As there are British nationals still in Libya, it is important for us to be able to have a channel of communication directly with the Libyan regime, as well as with leading figures in the opposition. It is therefore no surprise that such telephone conversations are going on, particularly in the situation that we had over the weekend. The background to the mission is exactly as I described it earlier. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as I made clear in my statement, the mission ended up meeting the president of the national council of the opposition forces, and that is now the basis for further diplomatic contact with them.

John Baron: Apart from the irony of sending a British warship named after a pork sausage to rescue Brits from a Muslim country, is not the real lesson from this situation that we should stop meddling in other people’s affairs and be very careful before we lecture countries on democracy when we have armed their autocratic rulers with crowd-control weapons?

William Hague: I differ a little from my hon. Friend on that point. When we had to evacuate British nationals from Benghazi, it was important to send the nearest royal naval ship available, irrespective of its name. That is not the only vessel that has been involved. HMS York has also been there, and my hon. Friend will understand that I am particularly proud of that as a Yorkshireman. I hope he has no difficulty with that. Those ships have been there not to meddle in anybody else’s affairs, but primarily to take humanitarian aid and to evacuate our nationals and the nationals of many other countries out of harm’s way.

Keith Vaz: The Foreign Secretary has announced a change in travel advice for Yemen. Last week, the Secretary of State for International Development generously, and correctly in my view, increased aid to Yemen to record levels. Is it still the Government’s position to support the Government of Yemen while calling for reforms?

William Hague: We do not take sides in Yemeni politics. We of course want a close and friendly relationship with the state of Yemen. We support the Government of Yemen in carrying out necessary reforms. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when I visited Yemen a few weeks ago, I called on its President to deliver a detailed development and poverty reduction plan, and to combat international terrorism within Yemen effectively. Those are the necessary priorities for Yemen. I also called on him to be generous to opposition parties in charting the way forward constitutionally for Yemen, and asked opposition parties to be generous to him in finding an agreed way forward. We are still engaged in
	that process, including through delivering the aid to Yemen that the right hon. Gentleman highlighted in his question. It is the Foreign Office’s responsibility to give up-to-date travel advice to reflect the difficult situation in that country. The situation has deteriorated in recent days, which is why we have changed the travel advice.

Richard Drax: If we have no aircraft carriers, which are needed to implement a no-fly zone, from which base would rescue helicopters for downed pilots fly?

William Hague: That will be the subject of the contingency planning that we are talking about. Clearly, there are many military bases along the south of NATO. I have referred to the need for clear support from the region if we are to implement a no-fly zone. That has to be borne in mind in answering my hon. Friend’s question.

Bill Esterson: My constituent Jennifer Currie, her eight-month-old baby Nadia and her six-year-old daughter Alisha, happily, are on their way home from Libya. My caseworker spent the weekend arranging for them to travel home from Gharian, where they were hiding from the fighting. It took the Foreign Office 36 hours to agree to pay for a taxi to the airport, and my caseworker had to persuade the Foreign Office to arrange flights home. Jennifer had to agree to pay £1,400 for the tickets when she got home. Will the Foreign Secretary investigate why the arrangements were left to an MP’s caseworker, and why the penniless mother of an eight-month-old baby was asked to pay for her children’s escape from a war zone?

William Hague: The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has responsibility for this region, has worked on this case and does not accept the hon. Gentleman’s description of it. We are delighted that his constituent and her children have been able to get out of Libya and to safety. FCO staff in London bought flights for her and her children, and ensured that she had assistance at Tripoli airport. They met her in Tunis and ensured that she made her flight, via Frankfurt, to the United Kingdom. We are not expecting her to repay the cost of the air fares.

Dan Byles: As we have heard, there have been calls in some quarters for the west to arm the rebels. Students of history know that we have in the past armed communist guerrillas in Malaya against the Japanese and the mujaheddin in Afghanistan against the Russians, both with unforeseen long-term consequences. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that he will exercise great caution in the face of such calls?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. I also point out that the whole of Libya is subject to a United Nations international arms embargo.

Andrew Love: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there are still questions about his judgment at the weekend? Did he not realise
	the difficulties that sending in a helicopter would create? Did he not realise that, in the sensitive situation in Libya, arming people to the teeth would be a red rag? Will he please answer the question about how he made those decisions? Does he not think that they have left us looking risible in the world community?

William Hague: I set that out earlier, so I am not sure that it is necessary to go over it again. Clearly, some of the judgments are difficult. The previous weekend, we sent armed people into Libya to perform different missions, so such judgments unfortunately have to be made quite regularly. This mission turned out differently from those on the previous weekend.

Alec Shelbrooke: May I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s reiteration today that there will be no major intervention without the UN’s backing, unlike what happened under the Labour Government? Will he outline the role of UK diplomats in the consular service in evacuating citizens from Libya?

William Hague: As I said earlier, the measures for which we are making contingency plans require demonstrable need, a clear legal basis and clear support from the region for them to be implemented. UK diplomats have done an amazing job. For example, the people in our rapid deployment team who went to Tripoli airport the week before last worked day and night for four to five days, assisting British nationals to be evacuated. They did an outstanding job, which has not always been widely recognised in the commentary on those matters. I pay tribute to them today.

Yasmin Qureshi: Will the Foreign Secretary now apologise for the fiasco over the weekend?

William Hague: I think that I have made my position on all that clear.

Kris Hopkins: Whatever political capital or trust there was to justify international military intervention in the middle east was spent several times over—and squandered—by the Labour Government. May I therefore suggest that any future intervention in which we participate is strictly rooted in humanitarian support so that we can start to regain the trust that Labour Members squandered and lost?

William Hague: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is much mistrust among the public about what might happen in such situations. I also reassure him that the measures for which we are doing the contingency planning—a no-fly zone, protection of humanitarian assistance—are directed at protecting the civilian population if that becomes necessary and there is a demonstrable need to do so.

Thomas Docherty: Further to the questions from the hon. Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Foreign Secretary indicated that he has identified some countries from which a no-fly zone could be operated. What are those countries and what discussions has the FCO had with them?

William Hague: Although those are entirely legitimate questions, they can be answered only after the contingency planning has been done either in NATO or with partners outside NATO. It is not possible currently to specify which countries would play such an active role.

Ben Wallace: In 2003, when Tony Blair led Colonel Gaddafi out of the cold, he did so on the basis that Libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction. We now read and have heard briefings in the past week that Gaddafi is perhaps in possession of mustard gas. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether that is true? If it is true, when did the Government know and why was it covered up?

William Hague: It is true, as far as we know, that Libya continues to have stocks of mustard gas. We continue to call on the Libyan regime to ensure that any stocks it has are absolutely secured, because the level of violence in Libya gives rise to concern about what might happen to them.
	I am not sure whether the previous Government had knowledge of the stocks or why they did not comment on them, but this Government have been very open about our knowledge that those stocks exist, and they must be secured.

Paul Flynn: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the day when Minister Michael Heseltine, clad in a camouflage jacket and accompanied by 1,500 soldiers and police, arrived at Molesworth peace camp by helicopter in order to evict 17 peace campaigners and a goat? Is it not true of the Government that our brave British soldiers—our brave British lions—are still led by Tory Ministers who have overdosed on James Bond?

William Hague: I do not fully recall the incident that the hon. Gentleman describes—I was at university at the time and was probably doing something else—but I take his point. However, I would have thought that he would have taken this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that our troops did in rescuing so many people from the Libyan desert the weekend before last.

Oliver Colvile: On that note, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating and thanking the crews of HMS Cumberland and HMS York, which are based in my constituency, who did such a professional job in that evacuation? Will he thank the Maltese Government for hosting our nationals who were involved, and will he explain our relationship with Malta and under what conditions we are operating?

Mr Speaker: Order. One answer will suffice.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to those things. The Defence Secretary spoke to the captain of HMS Cumberland only this morning and the Prime Minister has spoken to him in recent days. Cumberland and York have been doing a great job, exactly in the way that my hon. Friend describes. I welcome the opportunity to place on record our thanks to Malta for the assistance it has given to enable us to evacuate our nationals and to take humanitarian supplies into Libya. Malta is a neutral country, which we must always respect, and it is a member of the European
	Union and of the Commonwealth. We are enthusiastic that it is one of our partners in both those organisations. Recent events have reminded us of something that our predecessors in the 1940s and the 1800s learned—the immense strategic importance of Malta. We will do everything we can to strengthen our friendship with that country in the coming weeks and months.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure the Foreign Secretary is aware that a number of groups over the years, particularly Christian and voluntary groups, have visited the Palestinian territories, as Caritas did recently. What are we doing to get the peace process up and running, and in particular, what pressure are we putting on Israel?

William Hague: We are doing everything we can diplomatically. As I said, that is what we will discuss with President Abbas tomorrow. We have called on the US to join us in saying that the parameters of a settlement should include stating that it will be based on 1967 borders. We also need a just settlement for refugees, and for Jerusalem to be the future capital of both states in a two-state solution. We voted that way at the UN Security Council three Fridays ago—we voted among the group of 14 of 15 nations on the Security Council for the resolution concerning settlements in the occupied territories. Those settlements are illegal, and we have called on Israel to extend and then to renew its freeze on that building. This country is a friend to Israelis and to Palestinians. We believe that it is in the vital interests of both that the middle east peace process receives greater urgency from the international community, and not less urgency in the light of recent events.

Sajid Javid: To say that the situation in Libya is volatile, uncertain and dangerous would clearly be an understatement, which is why I and my constituents are immensely proud of the brave work of our special forces on behalf of their Queen and country. Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to congratulate our special forces on the courage they show?

William Hague: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I join him in his congratulations.

Stephen McCabe: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the lessons of the past few days is that we must be careful about the number of western military missions seeking to operate in Libya, lest they play into Gaddafi’s hands in respect of foreign interference and undermine the very opposition we are trying to reinforce?

William Hague: Yes, of course, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would also join me in accepting that there have been necessary military missions, including for the evacuation of some of our workers. We have just been praising the work of HMS Cumberland and HMS York. Those were also military missions. We do not go ahead with any military mission unless we believe it to be genuinely necessary.

Rehman Chishti: In Egypt, we have now seen a referendum on eight amendments to the constitution put forward by the interim military Government. Does the Foreign Secretary
	agree that all the amendments must be agreed by a new Parliament elected through free and fair elections in order to have a genuine democratic mandate?

William Hague: There is no doubt that we want to see free and fair elections in Egypt for the presidency and the Parliament. The people who have brought about the revolution in Egypt are also absolutely determined about that, however, so they do not need the United Kingdom to show our determination on that front—although we certainly agree. It is the people of Egypt who own what has happened, and of course we now want to see the development of a stable, open democracy in that country.

Toby Perkins: The Foreign Secretary is right to say that things have gone well and other things have not gone so well. However, with the decision not to convene Cobra for several days, the no-fly zone announcement, which was on and then off, the flights fiasco and the announcement about Venezuela, the mishaps have been coming thick and fast. Would he not be in a good position to try and rebuild his credibility if he apologised to the House and to those who might feel that their lives have potentially been put in danger by the mishaps that have befallen them over the past two weeks?

William Hague: The policy on the no-fly zone, which the hon. Gentleman asks about, has been the same throughout. As I have explained, the evacuation of British nationals was completed ahead of that of many other countries. Indeed, we assisted people from about 30 other countries in doing so. When one looks at those things, they will see that the United Kingdom has a good deal to be proud of.

Points of Order

Jonathan Edwards: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following last week’s overwhelming yes vote for law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor made statements over the weekend indicating the UK Government’s intention to begin a Calman-like process for Wales. Is it in order that these statements were made at their conference in Cardiff rather than in this House or the Welsh Assembly?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his intended point of order. I confess that I am not aware of any Government statement on this subject. Neither am I aware, notwithstanding what he just said in pursuit of his point of order, that there is a matter of order on which I can rule. However, I suspect that being a perspicacious Member he will find other opportunities to pursue the matter through the Order Paper and in the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have seen the large number of Members interested in the Foreign Secretary’s statement just now and the intensity of the questioning. Have you had any suggestions that there is going to be a full day’s debate on north Africa and the middle east in the very near future?

Mr Speaker: In the first instance, where Government time is concerned, that is a matter for the Government. Secondly, it could be a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. I was trying to think whether there was anything further in my mind on the subject, but I cannot recall off the top of my head any other plan. However, there are those two possible avenues, and I have a feeling that, if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied or if what he wants is not forthcoming pretty soon, he will renew his endeavours.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to look at the Order Paper for Thursday 17 March.

Mr Speaker: I am very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House, because I did not have the Order Paper in front of me and could not recall that date. I had germinating in my mind the notion that something was brewing, but I did not know what. However, the Deputy Leader of the House has helped the hon. Gentleman, me and the whole House, so we are all extremely grateful to him.

Jeremy Corbyn: We are all happy.

Mr Speaker: We hear pre-emptive gratification from the hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker: Gosh, we have an outbreak of happiness in the Chamber on a Monday afternoon. We are all grateful, and I am sure the country will be too.

Scotland Bill

[1st Allocated Day]

Considered in Committee.

[Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Administration of elections

Tom Greatrex: I beg to move amendment 10,page1,line22,at end insert—
	‘(3A) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
	(2A) The first order made by Scottish Ministers under subsection (1)(a) must include the application to Scottish Parliamentary general elections of the terms of paragraph (3A) of Rule 45 (the count) and Rule 53ZA (counting of votes: statement by returning officer) in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.”’.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Clause stand part.
	Government amendment 29.
	New clause 5—Administration of elections—
	‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act (enactments protected from modification by the Parliament), in paragraph 4(2) after “1(4)”, there is inserted “12”.
	(2) In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Act (reserved matters: specific reservations), in Section B3 (elections) the words “the European Parliament and the Parliament” are omitted and the words “and the European Parliament” are inserted.’.

Tom Greatrex: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo, as we embark on the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. Since we last debated the issues on Second Reading, the legislative consent motion Committee has made its report to the Scottish Parliament, which we received last week. I understand that it will be debated by the Scottish Parliament later this week. There is also the ongoing scrutiny of these matters by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, to which the Secretary of State and others have given evidence. We are part of the way down the road, but there is still some way to go.
	It is right that our scrutiny is done thoroughly and with care, and that the issues are properly raised and discussed, particularly in the Committee stage on which we have embarked. I am sure that many Members will wish to press their points on different aspects of the Bill. For our part, we have tabled a number of amendments, of which amendment 10 is the first. Some are designed to tease out detailed consideration to which the Minister might wish to respond further today or on Report, while we intend to press other amendments to the vote.
	I would like to say at the outset how grateful we are for the assistance and discussion we have had with a wide range of interested parties and individuals over the past few weeks as we have sought to scrutinise the Bill. We are also grateful for the Secretary of State’s confirmation—after some reasoned but pointed business questions in recent weeks, which also ensured that the
	Leader of the House had a fuller understanding of the Holyrood legislative process than he otherwise would—that the Government will not move forward to Report until the LCM process in Holyrood has been completed. We also note the Secretary of State’s confirmation that while he will wish to reflect on the content of the initial LCM Committee report—and, presumably, the motion that accompanies it—he will not necessarily be bound by it, which is a point he recently made at the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry. The LCM Committee made a number of observations and recommendations, and I am sure the whole House—well, at least some of it—will look forward to hearing the Government’s response to those points.
	It is part of the responsibility of Members to press on particular aspects of the Bill. There are strongly held views on both sides of the House on some aspects of devolution, but it is important to endeavour to continue our scrutiny of what the Secretary of State himself has proclaimed to be the most significant development in constitutional arrangements since the Scotland Act 1998. Our reference point, as always, because of its shared, cross-party status, is the report of the Calman commission, which hon. Members know led to an earlier White Paper before the general election and, subsequently, to this Bill.
	Clause 1 deals with the administration of elections, which Calman recommended should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Amendment 10 deals specifically with overnight counts, which I shall discuss first. It is widely acknowledged that, by and large, people in Scotland want to know the results of their elections as soon as it is practicable so to do. That was the objective of the Minister when he was in opposition in the lead-up to the general election last year and it was supported by the then Opposition parties in respect of an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which my amendment seeks to replicate. The Government are well aware of the history.
	Partly owing to measures of the Government’s own making, such as the imposition of a referendum on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections, and partly owing to the views of electoral administrators—who always come out of the woodwork during the build-up to elections—there has been continuing speculation in recent weeks that returning officers will again seek to move wholeheartedly to morning counts, which is something that they do habitually. They tried it in 2005—when, as an employee of East Dunbartonshire council, I was closely involved in the arrangements relating to the count for the redrawn East Dunbartonshire constituency—but got nowhere. They tried it in 2007 for the purpose of the Scottish parliamentary elections, notwithstanding the disruption caused to those elections, although—unlike the design and descriptions on the ballot papers—the time of the count was not an issue; and they tried it again in the run-up to the general election.
	As the Minister will recall, I raised the matter with him via the Leader of the House. Despite an earlier suggestion that it might be dealt with in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, he wrote to me saying that he was not prepared to change the law, that it was all very difficult, that returning officers were independent and he could not tell them what to do, and that we should leave it at that and lobby if we so wished. That was an interesting revision of the view that the
	Minister had expressed about a year ago, before the general election. I have with me the letter that he sent to me, in which he said that he assumed that I knew all that, given my long service as a special adviser at the Scotland Office. Given that long service at the Scotland Office, I was also aware that I would receive a letter from officials that I would send back, asking them to try again. Perhaps the Minister will learn that in the months and years to come.
	The spectre of election counts not starting as soon as practicable is still with us in respect of the voting in May. Although the revered Tom Aitchison of City of Edinburgh council is no longer in post, his successors keep trying. The amendment deals with the issue for the next election to the Scottish Parliament and every other set of Scottish parliamentary elections by invoking the amendment to the Representation of the People Act that finally dealt with it before the general election.
	I note the comments of the Electoral Commission, which has said that the amendment contains flexibility to deal with the position in constituencies such as Argyll and Bute in which there are practical problems connected with starting counts. However, it allows the counts to begin as soon as practicable after the election. Given that the Minister and his colleagues voted for this 12 months ago, I am sure that even within the scope of the coalition agreement there is the opportunity for some consistency on the Government’s part. I hope that those of us, in all parts of the Committee, who wish to reflect the view of our constituents that counts should happen as soon as possible after elections make our position clear. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

Eleanor Laing: I find myself in the extremely unusual position of agreeing entirely with everything that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has said. That is not surprising, however, given that the amendment that was accepted by the Government approximately a year ago, before the last general election, was originally tabled by me. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) wisely added his name to it and accepted it as a Government amendment, and it became part of the Bill. At the time, I thought that that was the only thing that I had ever achieved from the Opposition Front Bench, but perhaps that was due to the cynicism engendered by 13 years of opposition.
	I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West has tabled the amendment again. It was very popular with Members in all parts of the House when we debated it a year ago. It became law, and it made a difference to the way in which the general election was administered and to the timing of the extremely disappointing results of that election across the country. But if we were going to get bad news, perhaps it was as well to get it sooner rather than later. That is not the point, however. The point is that, in the operation of our democracy, it is right that election counts should take place as soon as practically possible after the close of poll.
	We discovered that many excuses were being made by returning officers around the country for not undertaking their duties in a timely and correct manner. They made
	every excuse that they could think of, none of which proved to be correct, because, when the law was changed and they were required to act as they ought to have been acting in the first place, they did so. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this amendment, but I hope that I shall be able to support what the hon. Gentleman has just proposed to the Committee.

Pete Wishart: I welcome you to the Committee, Ms Primarolo. I know how much you appreciate the convivial nature of Scottish debates, and I hope that we will do our best to behave ourselves today and to conduct these proceedings in a civil manner.
	On Second Reading, we made it clear that it was our intention to improve and strengthen the Bill. I concede that, over the past few weeks, significant progress has been made in that direction. We have already had the report from the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee, which made a number of useful and helpful recommendations, especially those that apply to the non-fiscal parts of the Bill. I welcome those recommendations. It is perhaps unfortunate, however, that some of them cannot be properly debated because of where we are in the process. The Scottish Parliament has not even passed its legislative consent motion, yet we are here in Committee today discussing the Scotland Bill, line by line and clause by clause.

Cathy Jamieson: Notwithstanding all that, and the fact that there is a huge amount of discussion still to be had, will the hon. Gentleman address the amendment? Does he not agree that it is absolutely right that the count in all Scottish parliamentary elections should take place immediately, overnight?

Pete Wishart: I have no dispute whatever with the hon. Lady about that; of course the count should take place as soon as possible—[ Interruption. ] If she will allow me, I must point out that we are debating clause 1. She needs to check what we are discussing just now.
	We have made progress, but it is unfortunate that we are unable to debate certain amendments that could have been tabled on the back of what was proposed by the parliamentary Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament. We are at a different stage in the process. The legislative consent motion has not been passed, yet we are here today scrutinising the Bill in detail in Committee without having access to that important work.

David Mundell: May I seek clarification from the hon. Gentleman? Why are he and his colleagues tabling amendments that do not appear in the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent motion Committee? For example, they are tabling an amendment proposing to devolve the matter of especially dangerous airguns to the Scottish Parliament, even though that was not the unanimous view of the Committee. If he respects the view of the Committee, why is he tabling such amendments?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I know that the Minister is eager to debate airguns, but perhaps he could wait until
	we get to the relevant clause? Meanwhile, I am sure that Mr Wishart was going to stick to clause 1 and this group of amendments.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to you, Ms Primarolo. That is exactly what I was going to do. May I just say to the Minister, however, that we will introduce and propose our own amendments? His problem as a Minister, and the problem for all the Calman commission parties, is that they have no opportunity to table their own amendments relating to the recommendations of the Scottish parliamentary Bill Committee. There has been no opportunity to do that because we got the Bill Committee’s report only on Friday morning.

David Mundell: I do not want to exceed my role, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it will be possible to discuss any further amendments arising from the Scottish Parliament’s consideration of the Committee’s report on Report in this House.

Pete Wishart: That answers one of the questions that I was going to put to the Minister, which is when are we going to see those amendments? How are they going to be introduced? If they are all to be tabled on Report, we will need a little more time to discuss them than is currently available. It would be unacceptable for them to be tabled in the unelected House of Lords. It is the responsibility of directly elected Members of Parliament to discuss those issues, and we should have the opportunity to do so. Those amendments should not be tabled in the House of Lords; they should be discussed on the Floor of this House. We should also have more time on Report, if that is when we will see those important amendments arising from the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee.

Stewart Hosie: My hon. Friend will have noticed the Minister saying that there would be time later—perhaps on Report—for the consideration of any amendments that follow the LCM Committee’s recommendations. However, during earlier exchanges the Secretary of State was nodding when my hon. Friend was confirming that the Government would not be bound by the LCM Committee’s recommendations. Will he now press the Government to confirm that if the LCM Committee proposes serious amendments or makes recommendations that would improve the Bill, they will accept them?

Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend poses an important question for the Minister. That is what we need to hear: are the Government of a mind to accept those recommendations? [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State is saying no. That is very clear. This is not an issue just for me; it is an issue for all my colleagues in the Chamber. This was supposed to be a process that started in the Scottish Parliament, but now that recommendations have been made, the Secretary of State is saying that he is not of a mind to accept them all. Perhaps he could give his view on what he is prepared to bring forward and what he is not prepared to bring forward.

Michael Moore: If I may repeat what I said to the Chair of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the Scottish Parliament’s Committee, we are already actively considering all the
	different proposals that have come forward from what is an excellent and serious report. We are taking it seriously and we will bring forward our thoughts on it at the appropriate moment, with time for plenty of scrutiny both here and in another place.

Pete Wishart: That is a helpful contribution from the Secretary of State, but perhaps when the Minister winds up he could tell us when we will see those amendments, where they will be introduced and when elected Members of this House will have the opportunity to debate them.
	I bring all this up because the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee makes an important recommendation in relation to the proposals for electoral administration. What we see in new clause 1 is the partial devolution of some administrative responsibilities—not all, as was recommended in the Calman report—from the Secretary of State to Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee said that two more areas should be added, covering the disqualification of Members and arrangements for elections to the Scottish Parliament. The Committee made those proposals, but we have not had the opportunity to debate them because we have not seen any amendments.
	Why is that important? It is important because of recent experience. We have to go back only four short years to find out what can happen in electoral administration, when more than 140,000 of our fellow citizens were effectively disenfranchised. They lost their ability to vote because of how the Labour party, which was then administering the Scotland Office, failed to discharge its obligations and responsibilities seriously and sensibly. Some 140,000 people lost their votes in the last Scottish Parliament elections. To be fair to the former Labour Scotland Office, a number of problems with that election were identified. To the previous Government’s credit—I acknowledge this—they brought in Ron Gould to look at what went wrong and perhaps make recommendations to ensure that it never happened again.

Jim McGovern: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the concerns raised was about putting the words “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on the ballot paper?

Pete Wishart: I accept that, and I said that the failings identified were not just those of the then Labour Scotland Office, although it was in charge of the process and the buck stopped there. Ron Gould identified a number of issues in his report. One of the key things that he identified was fragmentation and a disparity in responsibilities between this House and the Scottish Parliament. He made the strong suggestion that all responsibilities and arrangements for Scottish Parliament elections should be in one place, under one jurisdiction, and he gave the strongest possible hint that that should be the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament considered the Gould report back in January 2008. Its Members were unanimously of the view that all electoral administration, including competence for elections, should be in one place, and they made it clear that that place should be the Scottish Parliament.

David Mundell: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that as one of Ron Gould’s recommendations was that there should be no overnight counts, perhaps he was not right about everything?

Pete Wishart: I am more than happy to acknowledge that Ron Gould was not right about everything, but I think most Members accepted the broad thrust of his report’s recommendations in respect of the structural problems that arose in the 2007 election. One of his recommendations was that all responsibilities for elections should lie in one House, and he gave the strongest possible hint that that should be the Scottish Parliament. Our new clause 5 proposes precisely that. It brings together all aspects of electoral administration and legislative competence and places them with the Scottish Parliament, which is where they should be. We believe that that is the case not only because about 140,000 people lost their votes in 2007, but because it is the normal way of things. Any self-respecting Parliament should be in charge of its electoral arrangements. With election to office comes accountability, and we strongly believe that all arrangements to do with elections should be the responsibility of the Parliament that has been elected on the basis of those arrangements.
	I accept that the Bill’s proposals represent an improvement on current arrangements. I welcome the fact that it devolves certain administrative functions to Scottish Ministers—indeed, I welcome any transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament—but it does not even devolve all aspects of electoral administration, as recommended by the Calman commission. That would still give the Secretary of State powers over voter registration, the rules on the composition of Parliament, the procedure for filling any regional seat vacancy during the life of the Parliament, and rules relating to disqualification.
	Scottish Ministers would still need to approach the UK Government if primary legislation were required on the date of elections, for example, or even on the voting system, which is an issue that I know greatly exercises many Labour Back Benchers. The Scottish Parliament’s role would also be limited to approving or disapproving rules made by Scottish Ministers, and it would have no opportunity to shape them through its own primary legislation. Furthermore, the Bill would require that Scottish Ministers must consult the Secretary of State before making any of these rules.

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has said something that jarred with the logic of his argument. He is obviously speaking about an independent country that has its own Parliament when he says that the Parliament should decide the electoral system. Does he not accept that as this Westminster Parliament is sovereign, it is right that we decided the system—although I do not agree with it, in particular the additional Members who were added instead of bringing the numbers down to the figure proposed in the first Bill? Does he not accept that it is right that this sovereign Parliament should decide how people are elected to the devolved Parliament, as the reality is that we do not have an independent Parliament in Scotland?

Pete Wishart: Of course the hon. Gentleman and I differ as to how we would like this whole process to develop and the sort of Scotland we would like in the future, but my view is still very much that any self-respecting Parliament worthy of that name must be responsible for its own arrangements. That is just how things are done, and I believe the Scottish Parliament should have that responsibility.

Brian H Donohoe: Why, therefore, have the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues north of the border in his Scottish Parliament not processed the whole question of having a referendum on what he is talking about?

Pete Wishart: Actually, I have had a look at the calendar, and I see that there is to be an election in about eight short weeks’ time, when these very issues will be debated and voted on. I also foresee a groundswell of support for the position I am advocating and a diminution in support for the hon. Gentleman’s position.
	Through our amendment, we intend to fulfil the general drift and thrust of the Gould report recommendations, and to implement what has already been established in the major recommendation of the Calman commission report, which comes close to what the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee is proposing. The amendment also puts the voter at the heart of the process, because that is what is required. The interests of the voters come first, and they were short-changed and badly let down by what happened four years ago. Radical work was required in order to address that, and thank goodness we have the work and recommendations of Ron Gould.
	I see no good reason why Westminster should remain in charge of Scottish elections; I see only the predictable knee-jerk response that this place needs to have some sort of say and role in Scottish elections. To devolve not even all the administration of Scottish elections, as was suggested by Calman, is bewildering and contrary to everything proposed. The Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee is now saying that the devolution of administrative functions is not good enough and the Secretary of State needs to look at this again. The Committee went even further and said that before we even implement clauses 1 and 3 the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government should be consulted and we would review this once again. It also raised many of the Electoral Commission’s concerns in respect of the electoral management board—that is currently going through the Scottish Parliament.
	For all those reasons, I ask the Minister to re-examine this clause to see what can be done. Let us have a proper debate about what the will of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee is and what Calman intends in all this. Let us give proper constructive consideration to ensuring that all arrangements to do with elections, be they about electoral administration or legislative competence, can be moved to the Scottish Parliament. I ask hon. Members to support new clause 5.

Anne McGuire: I am delighted to support amendment 10. It would be disappointing if we judged whether or not it was valid on the basis of what happened during the previous Scottish Parliament elections. I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber can come up with a compendium of reasons why that count was a disaster. All political parties in this House have to accept some responsibility for the ballot paper, which has been identified as one source of the problem, because we all consented to it. We also put our faith, wrongly, in an IT system that did not work. We could perhaps accept that there is an excuse for its not working, given the complications involved in a Scottish Parliament election as a result of different votes being counted,
	different constituencies and so on, but that same IT system was tried out in a local council by-election in my constituency and it took us nearly five hours to get the result. The only good thing was that this occurred in the full presence and glow of the electoral commissioner with responsibility for Scotland, John McCormick, and his senior members of staff. They realised then, if they had not already done so, that that electronic system of counting was not yet usable for future elections.
	It would therefore be unfortunate if we said that one of the reasons why we do not want overnight counts relates to that disastrous night, although the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is right to identify the number of ballots that were lost—people’s votes that were lost. Ron Gould fell into the trap of stating that that was the reason why overnight counts were not wanted. He did not look beyond a particular set of circumstances on a particular evening when a series of issues arose that, in retrospect, could perhaps have been dealt with differently.
	I have been astonished by the reaction of returning officers. For most of my political life, they have been able to deliver an overnight count without any great anxiety about whether or not staff had to work overnight, yet they have suddenly decided, in their wisdom, that they do not want to accept the responsibility of an overnight count. It came as a surprise to many of us before the last election that what we thought was a given—an overnight count—was no such thing. We then discovered that returning officers had it in their power to decide when they wanted to count an election for this or any other House. With the greatest respect to returning officers across Scotland, I do not think it should be their responsibility to decide when the count should take place. It is for this Parliament to decide when an election count should take place and I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously and will look at how they engage with returning officers, because, as we found out before last year’s general election, custom and practice will not be good enough.

Brian H Donohoe: I wonder whether returning officers would be so keen on that if they were to forgo their wage for the election if it was to be held during office hours.

Anne McGuire: Knowing my hon. Friend’s grasp of the political minutiae of local government and returning officers, I am sure there is deep insight in those comments, but I am not quite sure what it is at the moment—unless he wants to explain his point in a way that I might understand.

Brian H Donohoe: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. If returning officers are going to work office hours to do the count, rather than overnight, they should not get any additional money. In those circumstances, perhaps we would save money if we moved the count.

Anne McGuire: I understand now exactly where my hon. Friend is coming from, and I am sure that he would never have put forward that argument when he was a full-time officer of the National and Local Government Officers Association, but I will let that one stick to the wall.
	There are all sorts of reasons why we should insist on an overnight count. Sometimes, we say that there is disillusionment in politics, but one area of excitement, even if it is only mini-excitement, is in waiting for the overnight count, and that is not just for apparatchiks and anoraks such as ourselves in the House. I think you would be amazed, Ms Primarolo, how many people like to listen and wait for election results to come in. Indeed, the figures show that.

Ian Davidson: May I confirm my right hon. Friend’s point about excitement? I remember wondering last Thursday, or in the early hours of Friday morning, “Will the Liberals come second or third in Barnsley, or will they come fourth or fifth?” But then, ecstasy of ecstasies, it turned out that they came sixth. The excitement built throughout the night, and that is why it is essential to have a count overnight.

Anne McGuire: I could not agree more. I not only waited until the television report had nearly finished, but then went upstairs to listen to the result coming through on Radio 5, and then promptly fell asleep.

Angus MacNeil: Such was the excitement.

Anne McGuire: Indeed, but I was delighted that when I awoke, what I at first thought was a dream was in fact reality—Labour had not only won that by-election but had won it with an increased majority and an increased percentage of the poll, and a member of the coalition parties had come further down. However, I see that I am taxing your patience a little, Ms Primarolo.
	I want to highlight the Electoral Commission’s comments. I am a wee bit surprised by the attitude it has taken in not supporting overnight counts, and I feel it has based its assumptions on what happened in the last election, four years ago. It makes a good point in saying that returning officers should not be expected to conduct parallel counts for the first-past-the-post and regional lists, but it is a bit disappointing that it has not recognised that part of the culture of elections in this country, and in many others, is sitting and waiting for the overnight results to come in. That happens in American presidential elections and others.

Eleanor Laing: Does the right hon. Lady agree that although the excitement is certainly important to people like us who are involved in these matters, it is not just a matter of excitement and media presence? It is also about good electoral governance, good management of the electoral process and bringing conformity right across the country. Last year, we discovered that returning officers had held themselves responsible for what happened in their area and that many of them refused to be told or to behave in the way that the Electoral Commission thought they should. Is it not therefore up to this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament literally to lay down the law so that there is conformity of action in every election taking place at the same time?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Like her, I do not want to overplay the excitement, in spite of our reflections on last Thursday night, because sometimes we can get carried away with that.
	The continuity of the election process and the election day is important. The election day does not finish until there is a declaration of the count. It is also necessary to give people the confidence that when they put their vote in a ballot box, which is sealed, it is resealed at the close of play and transported immediately or as quickly as possible—if the two are not mutually exclusive—to the count. Part of our historic attitude to elections is the speed with which we can get the individual’s vote from the place in which it was cast to the place of the count.
	We should recognise that, for the most part, we are not talking about transporting ballot boxes in the depth of winter. These elections are conducted in the spring. I have a constituency which, as some colleagues are no doubt fed up with my telling them, is the size of Luxembourg. I know that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has a constituency that extends far wider than that, but in the case of my constituency, we are talking of a distance of some 65 miles, and I have never heard of any difficulties in transporting the ballot boxes in reasonable time from outlying villages such as Tyndrum in the most northerly part of the constituency down to Stirling for the count.

Angus MacNeil: Although I am enjoying the marvellous nostalgia of election night, does the right hon. Lady see any role for electronic voting, which would give an instantaneous result?

Anne McGuire: I am not into the Simon Cowell approach to voting. Some of our younger colleagues who entered the House at the last election might see that in the future, but I do not have as much confidence in voting by mobile phone as the hon. Gentleman may have. We must make it as easy and straightforward as possible for people in varying circumstances to cast their vote. That is why the extension of postal voting has been such a welcome addition.
	We should consider seriously the way in which the House wants to see its elections and the count of those ballots conducted. I would be disappointed if we based all our analysis on the situation that arose four years ago. It was an unusual situation. There was a coincidence of circumstances which made the count difficult. If the Government are serious about achieving consensus on a major constitutional issue, I hope they will not just rely on the good will of electoral returning officers, but take account of the will of the House, which is, I hope, to count our ballots overnight for the Scottish Parliament elections.

Michael Connarty: It strikes me that all political parties are like Simon Cowell—they want the person they own to win whatever campaign they are involved in, so we have a vested interest, although I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) might go.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) was right about the myths regarding the errors of 2007, as if it was all down to the ineptitude of the Scotland Office at the time, or of the returning officers. It is clear that the complication in 2007 was the counting of two ballots for two different purposes on two different mandates, combined with the construction
	of a ballot paper that did not make sense to the elector and clearly, in the count that I watched at great length until I retired to bed at about 4 am, was not fully understood by the returning officer in my area.

Angus MacNeil: To be clear, by electronic voting I do not mean the Simon Cowell, light entertainment version, but the serious version used in many countries around the world.

Michael Connarty: I know a little about that, as my son lives in Australia, which has a totally electronically registered electorate who all must register and vote. He travels a great deal all over Australia with his job and finds absolutely no difficulty in voting, because he can pop into any electoral office in any town at any time up to three weeks before a ballot and cast his vote for the area in which he lives, so it is a very sensible system. It is surprising that we have not caught up with the technology. It would certainly be a great advantage if we did, as that might engage people much more in the ballot.
	The idea that we had a problem because we counted overnight is wrong. Although those of us who soldiered on might not have been quite as excited by the process as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), it was clear to us that the muddle was created by there being two ballot papers. The other question relates to the training of returning officers, because I do not think that the returning officer I watched was competent enough to deal with the ballot, and some crazy errors occurred. For example, he did not tell a candidate who had lost in a council election going on at the same time that he had lost by one vote. The candidate did not discover that until the next day and so was not allowed a recount. Whether that was the result of incompetence, or just the fact that the returning officer was so fatigued that he wanted to get home to his bed and not have another recount in that crazy system running parallel to the Scottish election is another problem.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) seemed to argue that at whichever level an election takes place—Scottish Parliament level or UK Parliament level—that level should have control over its own type of ballot. By that argument, local councils would be put in charge of their elections and allowed to decide all the things that have been argued for, including exactly who would be elected, how they would be elected and what the franchise would be. That is a nonsense. Presumably for Scottish Parliament elections it would be the First Minister who decides, certainly in the present Scottish Government, as only one person seems to make all the decisions in that Government. Those aspects must be determined by the level above that being elected. For example, the Scottish Parliament, quite correctly, controls the methodology for local elections, just as this sovereign Parliament, which set up the Scottish Parliament, should decide if it wishes to change that, possibly in negotiations. That is not saying that there is not a dialogue to be held, but the idea of putting it down does not make much sense.
	Therefore, I support the amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling said, the important point is that when people put their ballot papers in the ballot box, they expect it to be transported securely to the place where they are to be counted. One of the reasons why that was set up for UK elections was to let
	people know that ballot boxes are not stored somewhere else where they might be tampered with, so there is no split between the process of voting and the process of counting. To push that back to the next day is to add to people’s cynicism about how elections are conducted and how the count comes out.
	It is clear to me that the lesson we should learn from 2007 is that we should not have two counts on the same evening. Therefore, we should not have the two processes of electing representatives and choosing the method of election at the same time. That argues strongly against the Government’s proposal to have a referendum on a voting system on the same day as the Scottish elections, because that is asking people to postpone the count for the electoral amendment to the next day. It might be fine, because I think that it will be the great yawn of the century—I can just see people getting as excited as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North about exactly what little deviation in the electoral system they will be allowed in the process of choosing which system to use.

Ian Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Connarty: I have startled him into an intervention.

Ian Davidson: My constituency is Glasgow South West.
	That was not a deviation. Was it not a major result? One of the country’s governing parties came not even second in a by-election, and not even third. If I remember correctly, it was not even fourth or fifth. [ Laughter. ]It is indeed laughable that it came sixth. I believe that it beat the Loonies, but only barely because there was some blurring at the edges. Is that not worth being excited about?

Michael Connarty: Obviously, my hon. Friend is the Member for Glasgow South West, and I do apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who has offices across the corridor from me. I should really remember that.
	A change to AV would not have helped the Liberal Democrats in that election, and any such change will probably not help them in the future, either. The point that I am trying to make is a very serious one, however. To have two different ballots, a referendum on a voting system and a vote for an elected chamber, is to mix up the purpose and focus of the electorate on that day, but that might be the reason behind it all. The possibility of not coming sixth and getting a few votes as the minor party in the coalition might be the reason for holding the two ballots on the same day, but that certainly argues for splitting the process. In the proposals before us, we say that the count for the Scottish Parliament should take place overnight, which is quite correct—and basically no one really cares what happens to the referendum.

Ian Davidson: We have to ask ourselves a fairly simple question about when the count is held: for whose convenience are elections run? There is a view, very strongly held, that elections are run for the convenience of returning officers. I do not take that view; I tend to think that people generally want elections run for their convenience. A tradition has developed over a long
	period, whereby those who do not follow an election overnight wake up in the morning and hear the result, and I see no good reason why we should not make that stipulation. Of course professionals and those who are competent at, and have experience in, running elections should have a say in how polls are carried out, but they should not be the tail that wags the dog.
	That is one of the issues, however, because if we have an election management board, with the role of the Electoral Commission being brought into question, it must be under democratic control; it must not be self-employed and able to set its own rules according to its own convenience, because its view of what is best will often be determined by self-interest.
	I understand, however, that the Government are about to announce a change in the rules about the announcement of by-elections, so that when the Government, particularly the minority governing party, have a successful result along the lines of that in Barnsley, it will be announced some two days after hell freezes over. That does not seem to be an appropriate outcome. Not only did the junior partner in the coalition—this cuts coalition—come sixth; it has been suggested that it came sixth only because the Scottish National party was not standing, and that support for the SNP in Barnsley would have been far greater than that for the Liberals. I can understand that.
	I was interested to see that the UK Independence party—basically the British National party with suits—beat the Conservatives, which again tells us something significant. People do find that quite exciting and stimulating. I want to ensure, however, that the Government’s position is that two ballots should not be conducted at the same time, because, unless the Government change their mind, the Scottish Parliament elections and the AV referendum will be held on the same day. I hope that we can secure the commitment that they will be counted separately, because most of us want to see the Liberals get a kicking twice, and it would greatly spoil our enjoyment if the results came out at the same time. People in Scotland want to be able to say no to separation, no to cuts, no to the coalition and no to AV, and they need the announcements to be clearly separated.
	Finally on the issue of delay, I am old enough to have read about John F. Kennedy’s presidential election. The result turned on Illinois, and in Illinois the result turned on Chicago. Chicago, despite being an urban area, was about the last area to announce its vote, because the Democrats held the results back until they found out how many votes they needed to win that state and, hence, the American presidential election. Thankfully, we have always been free of any such suggestion in this country, but it will be considered a possibility if there is any undue delay. It is therefore important to proceed with the count as quickly as possible.
	I would like to remind people of the excitement that they, too, felt when they heard the result of the Barnsley by-election. I do not know whether I have mentioned this, but the junior partner in the coalition did not come anywhere close; in fact, it was sixth. I do not have the figures with me, but I suspect that it was only the votes of a couple of households, and the fact that the SNP did not stand, that stopped it coming 10th out of nine candidates.

David Mundell: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans. It is always a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I thank the hon. Member
	for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) for his good advice, which, as he said, he garnered during his sentence at the Scotland Office.
	While Ms Primarolo was in the Chair, Mr Evans, I tried to seek some guidance on the SNP position in respect of this Bill, because, as those of us who were present during its Second Reading will know, the SNP declared it to be unacceptable. However, I am afraid that that clarity was not forthcoming.

Pete Wishart: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only the case that the SNP found the Bill in its current, unamended form to be unacceptable, but that the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee made many recommendations that have significantly improved it?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Bill Committee. I sought from him, and again he refused to answer, clarification on whether he would accept that Committee’s report, and whatever the vote of the Scottish Parliament is, rather than pursuing amendments that even his colleagues on the Committee did not pursue.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the Secretary of State of State for Scotland, has said to me and to this House that he is not of a mind to accept all the recommendations from the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee. How can we make up our minds if he does not tell us what is and is not going to be accepted?

David Mundell: The Secretary of State made it clear in his written ministerial statement that the Government will give serious consideration to all the amendments and issues raised in the Bill Committee because we respect the work of that Committee and the work of the Scottish Parliament; we do not pick and choose to meet our own political ends.

Angus MacNeil: Is the right hon. Gentleman accepting or steamrollering the will of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee?

David Mundell: The Government are looking forward to the debate in the Scottish Parliament later this week when it will consider the legislative consent motion coming forward from the Bill Committee. It will be very interesting to see how the SNP votes in that debate.
	Clause 1 transfers to Scottish Ministers certain Executive functions relating to the administration of Scottish Parliament elections that are currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Members will wish to note that the Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament accepted this provision in its report on the Bill. However, as has been mentioned, the report also asked for consideration of a number of related issues such as the procedure for filling any regional seat vacancy during the life of a Parliament, the rules relating to disqualification, and reciprocal consultation. I wish to reaffirm that the written statement from the Secretary of State makes clear our commitment carefully to consider those recommendations, including those relating to this clause. The Scottish Parliament will vote on the Bill on Thursday, and we await the outcome of that vote.
	The clause will enable Scottish Ministers to make general provision by order for the conduct and administration of elections to Holyrood, subject only to some necessary constraints. This power includes making provision about supply or otherwise dealing with the electoral register, the combination of Scottish Parliament elections with other elections falling within the legislative competence of the Parliament, and limitation of candidates’ election expenses. However, some elements of the powers will remain the function of the Secretary of State—that is, the franchise and the power to combine Scottish Parliament elections with other reserved elections. That will ensure that issues of constitutional importance continue to be dealt with by the UK Parliament. The Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament recognised and accepted the continued reservation of those matters.
	Amendment 10, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said, would require Scottish Ministers’ first conduct order under the new powers to include provision requiring returning officers to start the count at Scottish Parliament elections within four hours of the close of the poll, or to publish a statement explaining why they were unable to do so. It is important to clarify at this point that the amendment would not apply to the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections.
	I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, which has been set out eloquently by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). The drama and excitement of election night and the wish to know the election result as soon as possible are vital parts of our political heritage. I want returning officers to listen to what has been said in this debate. As hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies know, Mary Pitcaithly, the chairman of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, will be available to Scottish MPs to discuss the arrangements for the forthcoming Scottish elections at a meeting at the Scotland Office later this week. I am sure that the point about overnight counts will again be forcefully made.
	In a recent response to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, I suggested that he and his colleagues should lobby for overnight counts. I had noticed that the counts in Conservative-led council areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, Scottish Borders and South Ayrshire were scheduled to be overnight counts, and that Labour predominated in the council areas that were on the list of counts scheduled to happen the following day. I therefore thought that he might be able to bring more influence to bear than I in those areas.

Cathy Jamieson: I hear what the Minister is saying, but does he not agree that the best way to ensure that overnight counts take place is to pass the amendment and put it in the Bill, rather than simply exhorting to people and leaving the discretion to them?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady cannot have heard me say that the amendment would not apply to the 2011 election. I am surprised that she, of all people, takes the view that when we are devolving powers to the Scottish Parliament on this matter, we should curtail them. Once the powers have been devolved, it will be perfectly possible for the Scottish Parliament to take account of the representations that have been made from certain
	quarters, where there is clearly an equally strong feeling about overnight counts. Passing this amendment would be contrary to the spirit of devolving responsibility for these matters to the Scottish Parliament. I certainly hope that we will not see support from the Scottish National party for such curtailment of a newly devolved power.

Ann McKechin: Does the Minister agree, given the strength of feeling that has been clearly shown across the Committee this afternoon, that this matter should be left to a free vote for Government Members? This point elicits a great deal of excitement and passion among Members, so it would be appropriate to deal with it on the basis of Members’ own judgment, rather than on a party political basis.

David Mundell: From the hon. Lady’s experience of the Scotland Office, she will know that this is a debate not about the merit of overnight counts, but about whether the Scottish Parliament, in gaining new powers over the administration of elections, should have those powers constrained in respect of an election that is likely to take place in 2016.
	It is not about the count on the night of 5 May 2011. I advise the hon. Member for Glasgow North and other Labour Members to come along and speak to Mary Pitcaithly later this week and reinforce the strength of feeling that exists for overnight counts for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

Ian Davidson: Does the Minister believe that it is right that elected Members of Parliament should have to lobby an unelected bureaucrat about the way in which the elections should be conducted? I appreciate that the change in the rule will not apply to this year’s elections, but it is unfortunate that we have got ourselves into a position whereby the best that the Minister can suggest is that we go along and lobby a bureaucrat, no matter how worthy.

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that since it was first suggested that few overnight counts would take place in Scotland for the election of 5 May, the number has grown significantly, partly because of the expression of public opinion. Today’s debate and some of the eloquent contributions that we have heard will further reinforce that. Passing the amendment this evening will not move the matter forward because it will have no impact on the count.

Anne McGuire: Would not it be a clear declaration of intent by the House to the returning officers that we expect them, even in the absence of a legal instruction that they must do it, to hold an overnight count for elections to the Parliament of Scotland?

David Mundell: I trust the Parliament of Scotland to set its own rules for the elections in 2015 or 2016. That is why the Government support devolving the power.

Anne McGuire: I fear that the Minister may have missed my point. I recognise his legal and technical argument that the matter will be the Scottish Parliament’s responsibility in 2016, but surely some seven or eight
	weeks away from the potential for counts to be postponed until the next day, we should send out a message from this House that we expect an overnight count.

David Mundell: The right hon. Lady’s comments, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and others will have sent that clear message to returning officers.

John Thurso: The point at issue is whether the Scottish Parliament should have the right to make those decisions. The Bill grants those powers. The second question is how we get what we all want: an overnight count at the forthcoming election. Does the Minister have any power under other primary or secondary legislation that he could use to make that happen so that we do not send a message, but just make it happen?

David Mundell: I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I believe that we can all play a role in ensuring that it happens through the force of our argument. Again, I invite colleagues to join me and others at the meeting with the chairman of the Interim Electoral Management Board.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister is doing a stoical job in trying to defend the indefensible, but the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) is right. Notwithstanding the fact that we want everything devolved, not just the administration, the clearest signal that we are backing public opinion in wanting an overnight count would be voting for amendment 10 and allowing the Scottish Government to make the decisions thereafter.

David Mundell: I do not know why I should be surprised at the SNP’s voting against more powers for the Scottish Parliament in an attempt at gesture politics, in which its specialises.
	The SNP referred to new clause 5, on which we will vote on the third day of Committee proceedings. That would give the Scottish Parliament full legislative competence for the Scottish Parliament elections. That goes far wider than the Calman commission’s recommendation to devolve only the administration of elections. The Government gave careful consideration to the extent of the powers to be devolved on the evidence provided to the commission, and we believe that the proposals in the Bill strike the right balance. Devolving elements of responsibility for the administration earlier, as was outlined earlier, is consistent with the Calman commission’s principle—

Pete Wishart: What extra value does the Scotland Office bring to elections in Scotland?

David Mundell: This will not be the first time during the Committee’s discussions that I refer to the fact that the SNP declined to take part in the deliberations of the Calman commission, and indeed set up its own national conversation. Many issues on which SNP Members now claim outrage could have been fully debated if they had raised them at that time. The Bill is based on the recommendations of the commission.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister says that the SNP declined to take part in Calman. He will, I am sure, want to confirm for the record that the Government refused to
	accept all the Calman recommendations, and that the Bill does not go even as far as Calman suggested it should.

David Mundell: Given the hon. Gentleman’s thorough research into all matters on which he speaks, I am sure he has read in detail the Command Paper that accompanied the publication of the Bill, in which the Government set out their response to each and every Calman recommendation, and how, whether in legislation or otherwise, those are being taken forward.
	Government amendment 29 to clause 3 is technical and ensures that when Scottish Ministers make orders about the administration of Scottish Parliament elections, they can include the type of technical supplementary provision set out in section 113 of the Scotland Act 1998. For example, Ministers could make different provisions for different purposes or make consequential or savings provisions. The amendment also ensures that any criminal penalties imposed in such an order are subject to the appropriate limits. It gives Scottish Ministers the same supplementary powers and constraints as currently apply to the Secretary of State when he makes provision on the administration of Scottish Parliament elections.
	I commend clause 1 to the House and urge the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) to withdraw his amendment.

Tom Greatrex: We have had an interesting start to the Committee. The Minister will have heard the concern of Members of both sides of the House at the possibility that overnight counts will not happen. In all candour, it is not good enough for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that we go and lobby Mary Pitcaithly on Thursday on the matter. We have the opportunity now to set a position that the Minister voted for in relation to elections to this House, which is a perfectly responsible position.
	The Minister would do well to listen to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). I apologise to her, because I was unaware that the wording of amendment 10 is borrowed from her. I hope she feels emboldened enough to vote for it. I have heard her argue against the Government on other occasions, but she has felt unable to follow through and vote against them. I hope she has the confidence to do so today.
	This issue is at the heart of electoral administration. As I said, at every set of elections, electoral administrators say, “We don’t want overnight counts. We can’t do it for reason A, B, C, D, E or F.” The proof is not in what Ron Gould says, but in what we all witnessed in May last year. If we set a position, the electoral administrators can get on with it. Let us make that clear for the Scottish Parliament elections as well as for other elections.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 206, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Combination of polls at Scottish Parliamentary and other reserved elections

Tom Greatrex: I beg to move amendment 11,page3,leave out lines 4 and 5.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause stand part.
	New clause 7—Timing of the Scottish Parliamentary general election—
	‘(1) Section 2 of the 1998 Act is amended as follows.
	(2) At the end of subsection (2) there is inserted “or unless the poll is advanced or delayed as a result of the operation of subsection (6A) below”.
	(3) At the end there is added the following new subsection—
	“(6A) If the poll to be held under subsection (2) or subsection (5) above is in the same calendar year as an early parliamentary general election under section 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Parliament may by resolution appoint an alternative day for the poll for the next Scottish Parliamentary general election no more than 12 months earlier nor more than 12 months later than the day appointed under subsection (2) or subsection (5) above and at least 6 months before or after the
	parliamentary general election, and the day so appointed shall be treated as if it had been proposed by the Presiding Officer under subsection (5) above.”’.

Tom Greatrex: Amendment 11 and new clause 7 are probing amendments regarding the potential for elections to happen on the same date. In the previous discussion, we heard a lot about the Gould report and the issues encountered in the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Ron Gould concluded that one of the primary problems was a combination of elections on the same date, and that has been implicitly recognised by the Secretary of State in some of his discussions about the potential clash arising from the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Despite the fact that there are a number of concerns, this issue has been included in the Bill not because of something that Calman deliberated on, but because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill going through Parliament. That would not, of course, be an issue if that Bill had proposed a four-year term, because a four-yearly cycle for the Scottish Parliament elections and a four-yearly cycle for the UK Parliament elections would mean that the elections would always be at different times. That is why we tabled the amendment. As every authority questioned by the Select Committees that have examined the issue has said, there is very little, if any, precedent for a five-year term, and a four-year fixed term is much more appropriate. That is why I raise the matter today. New clause 7 is also relevant to the potential problems created if an extraordinary general election for the UK Parliament were to take place under a coalition Government, for example.

Ian Davidson: Surely there is a logic to having a five-year term. If one part of the coalition has come third in a by-election and another part of the coalition has come sixth it, it is quite understandable that they are in no hurry to have an election.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, might well be thinking about how long he might be able to continue as Secretary of State, and what my hon. Friend says could well be one of the reasons for that stance. If we are in a position in which an extraordinary general election has to take place, new clause 7 would provide the opportunity to deal with it in a way that is appropriate for both the Scottish and the UK Parliaments and would save us from having to conduct both elections in the same year. It deals with the problem of confusing the issues of the two different elections and should help us to avoid the problems experienced in 2007, when having two electoral systems for different Parliaments at different elections caused some confusion. It is our responsibility to do what we can to ensure that people are made aware of how their elections work and to make those elections as straightforward as possible. That is the intention behind amendment 11 and the accompanying new clause 7, which deals with extraordinary circumstances.

David Mundell: This clause amends the Representation of the People Act 1985 to provide that when a Scottish parliamentary general election and a parliamentary general election or a Scottish parliamentary general election and a European parliamentary general election are to be conducted on the same date, they should automatically be taken together. It will also allow for
	the polls to be combined if the returning officers so agree where polls for related areas are taken on the same day—as, for example, with a Scottish Parliament by-election and a parliamentary general election.
	Amendment 11, as proposed by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), would remove the mandatory requirement that where the polls at a Scottish Parliament general election and a UK Parliament general election fall on the same day, the administrative arrangements must be taken together. The amendment would not stop the polls taking place on the same day, however, and it leaves returning officers with the discretion to combine the polls if they think fit to do so. Alternatively, if they are not combined, various processes such as the issue of poll cards and postal votes or voting at polling stations would have to be run side by side.
	As it stands, the clause will allow poll cards, postal voting materials and polling stations to be shared. It effectively streamlines the process of organising and running the two polls on the same day, avoiding potential duplication of functions where polls held on the same day would otherwise be run in parallel and it enables overall costs to be reduced. If two polls fall on the same day, for whatever reason, electoral administrators agree that combining them is the best option. It makes it simpler for the returning officer to administer and, more importantly, makes it easier for voters to cast their votes at both polls. If the intention behind the amendment is to stop the polls taking place when both elections fall on the same day, it does not work. If the intention is to make it easier for the voter, that, too, I would suggest, does not work.

Iain Stewart: I would like to offer some anecdotal evidence from my constituency at the general election. That poll coincided with a local government poll. The arrangements were that postal ballot papers for the local election were sent out earlier than those for the general election. A number of electors expressed their confusion and asked why they had only one ballot paper when they were expecting two. The imperative of combining the two elections in one is incredibly important.

David Mundell: I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable insight based on his personal experience.
	In addition, if the intention of new clause 7 is to avoid the poll at a scheduled Scottish Parliament election from falling on or close to the date of the poll for an early parliamentary general election held under clause 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, it does not work.

Frank Doran: I appreciate that the clause will not apply to the next Scottish election, but there are difficulties in Aberdeen where we have the forthcoming vote on AV and a vote on the Scottish parliamentary elections, which require two ballot papers. Sadly, one of the Liberal Democrat councillors died recently, as a result of which a by-election is also likely to be held on 5 May. The electorate in Aberdeen are thus looking at four separate polling formulae under different systems. The Minister used the word “streamline”
	earlier, so will he help me by explaining how we are going to streamline the elections in those sorts of circumstances?

David Mundell: The arrangements for the conduct of the Scottish Parliament election and the AV referendum allow for a council by-election to be held on the same day. As I understand it, that by-election will take place on the basis of one form of the alternative vote system.

Frank Doran: But there is a worry that we should use separate arrangements when there are that number of elections all taking place on different bases on the same day.

David Mundell: On the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, representations can be made to the returning officer, because the polls are not required to take place on the same day. The by-election poll does not have to take place on 5 May; it is a decision for the returning officer. That by-election poll should also take place in a separate polling station, although possibly within the same building.

Frank Doran: As I understand the current law on local government by-elections, the election must be held within three months of the death or resignation of the councillor—except when there is also a UK parliamentary or Scottish parliamentary election. In this particular case, except at extraordinary expense, the returning officer does not have much option.

David Mundell: I think the returning officer has some option, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important and relevant point about the multiple electoral systems operated in Scotland. I had just mentioned that Scottish council by-elections, which are another example of polls that could be held on the same day as the AV referendum, take place under a form of the alternative vote rather than the single transferable vote.

Jim McGovern: Is it not the case that we are effectively putting a price on democracy by saying that it is simply cheaper to have all the polls on the same day?

David Mundell: I do not believe that is an accurate summation of the position. The clause allows for the combining of polls and the amendment suggests that they should not be combined. However, I do not accept that the amendment is successful in that regard.
	If new clause 7 is designed to avoid having a poll at a scheduled Scottish Parliament election following on or close to the date of the poll for an early parliamentary election held under clause 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, it does not work, as I have said. By its very nature, an early parliamentary general election held under clause 2 will take place at short notice following either a motion of the House that there should be such an election, or at the end of the 14-day period after a motion of no confidence.
	In the unlikely event that a Prime Minister were to decide on a campaign period of at least six weeks before the date of poll at the early parliamentary general election, which would be the minimum to ensure that the Scottish Parliament had not already dissolved, the parties taking part in the Scottish parliamentary general election would have already gone to significant expense in preparing campaign literature and making other
	arrangements, as would returning officers. All that would be wasted if the Scottish Parliament then decided to change the date of poll. Returning officers might also have started the nomination processes and, depending on timing, might have already entered into contracts for printing and accommodation, the costs of which would, again, be wasted.

Sandra Osborne: Surely the logical conclusion of the Minister’s argument is that we should have four-year rather than five-year fixed-term Parliaments. Would that not be an easier way in which to solve the problem?

David Mundell: As the hon. Lady will know, what she suggests was debated extensively in the Chamber during the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the House delivered its view then. As she will also know, last Thursday the Scottish Parliament voted unanimously to ask the United Kingdom Government to move the date of the Scottish parliamentary election in 2015 to avoid a clash with the United Kingdom general election. The motion stated that the Scottish Parliament
	“notes the potential clash of UK and Scottish general election dates in 2015; invites the UK Government to set the next Scottish general election after 5 May 2011 for Thursday 5 May 2016, and looks forward to UK Government consultation on a legislative provision that would set apart UK and Scottish general election dates on a permanent basis.”
	I am sure that Opposition Members welcome the fact that the coalition Government have consulted the Scottish Parliament fully on the matter, because it was raised in a number of debates.

Tom Greatrex: Surely the Minister accepts that the Scottish Parliament felt the need to come up with that motion only because of the potential provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. If the Bill had provided for a four-year fixed term, there would be no problem. The Government still have an opportunity to revisit that possibility, and I hope that they will take it.

David Mundell: The issue of the length of a fixed-term Parliament was well argued during the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the fixed term that Parliament has determined is five years. The Government have therefore embarked on an active discussion of the matter with the Scottish Parliament.

Thomas Docherty: My maths is not always fantastic, but I suspect that in 2020 we shall encounter exactly the same problem, because the Westminster Parliament will last from 2015 until 2020, and the Scottish Parliament will last from 2016 to 2020. Are the Government considering a permanent extension of the Scottish Parliament’s term to five years?

David Mundell: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of possibilities have been suggested, and the Government have said that after the Scottish parliamentary election, there will be a consultation on them. Some Members of the Scottish Parliament have said that they would like it to serve a five-year term, and that view will obviously be considered.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Minister for giving way to me again. He is being characteristically generous. Surely he accepts that there would be no need for so much consultation and juggling with all the possible ways of dealing with the problem if a four-year fixed term were proposed for this Parliament as well as the Scottish Parliament. He has an opportunity to make that case to his colleagues in Government, so that the issue can be dealt with when the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill returns to this House. Will he take the opportunity to make sure that that point is made?

David Mundell: I see no purpose in a rerun of the debate on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. The views expressed by the hon. Gentleman have been expressed by others, but they have not prevailed in votes in the House. The Government have set out what I consider to be the strong arguments for a five-year term for this Parliament. Because of the complicated devolution settlement in the United Kingdom, which has its own nuances—I welcome them, because they accommodate the different needs of different parts of the United Kingdom—consequential changes would inevitably be required. We have discussed the changes required in the timing of the Scottish parliamentary election and the best way of resolving the issue in a mature way through a dialogue with the presiding officer and party leaders in the Scottish Parliament.

Anne McGuire: Does the Minister not accept that in trying to extend the life of this Parliament to a term that bears no relationship to any other element of our electoral process, the Government have created a series of problems not just for themselves but for other parts of the democratic process? The result has been a number of ill-considered consequences to which the Minister and the Government attempt to apply Elastoplast every time they encounter them. This is a very expensive way of providing a lifeboat for the coalition Government to take them through to 2015.

David Mundell: I would take what the right hon. Lady says a good deal more seriously had the last Labour Government not extended their own life to virtually the last minute of a five-year term. That opened up the possibility of another five-year term for this Parliament, leading to a coincidence of elections with the Scottish Parliament elections in 2015 that would have taken place in an unstructured and unthought-out way. The Bill has dealt with the possible repercussions.

Anne McGuire: Will the Minister reflect on the facts? There have been two five-year Parliaments since 1992, one under the former Conservative Prime Minister John Major and the other under a Labour Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). The Minister’s argument has no credibility. He and the Government have created a series of consequences by trying to introduce a five-year fixed term for the current Parliament. Everyone else is being forced to alter the ways in which they operate in order to suit the coalition Government.

David Mundell: I am afraid that that is merely a smokescreen for the fact that there could have been a coincidence between the Scottish parliamentary and Westminster elections in any event, and that arrangements would have had to be made to deal with it.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister said earlier that the Government had given some consideration to the idea of moving the Scottish parliamentary elections to 2021. He will be aware that the next local government elections are scheduled for 2021. It may interest Members to know that several years ago, in the Scottish Parliament, a certain David Mundell introduced a Bill to decouple the Scottish Parliament from the local government elections. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what his position on the issue is now.

David Mundell: My maths is better than the hon. Gentleman’s. I knew that already, and I knew that these were exactly the sort of matters on which discussion and dialogue were needed. It is much better for that discussion and dialogue to take place in a structured way than for it to take place on the ad hoc basis that would have been required if there had been a coincidence of elections on the basis of the arrangements that existed before the introduction of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. That Bill allows these matters to be addressed, and discussion and dialogue to take place. I believe that the mature way in which that dialogue with the Scottish Parliament has taken place reflects well on the coalition Government.

Ann McKechin: Does not this debate show that a draft Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which would have allowed consultation to take place between all the relevant bodies affected by the legislation in advance of it being brought to this House, would have been the most sensible way forward?

David Mundell: Once Parliament had determined the nature of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, the appropriate thing to do was to enter into the mature and sensible dialogue that we have had with the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that the motion in the Scottish Parliament was passed unanimously. The Government will take forward the wish of the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the next Scottish Parliament election after this one will take place on 5 May 2016, on the basis that voters going to the polls on 5 May 2011 will know that they will be electing their MSPs to serve for five years.
	I do not feel that the amendment would achieve the objectives that it sets out to achieve. It could lead to a lot of wasted expenditure for candidates, parties and returning officers, and I accordingly commend clause 2 to the Committee and urge the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West to withdraw his amendment.

Tom Greatrex: We have had an interesting debate on these issues. I would just note again that, if there had been a proposal for a four-year fixed-term Parliament, none of this would have been a problem. That would probably have been a more sensible route to take, and it is still open to the Government to deal with that matter again in the weeks to come. In the light of what the Minister has said, we will withdraw the amendment at this stage and perhaps reflect on the matter again on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave,  withdrawn .
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Supplementary and transitional provision about elections

Amendment made: 29, page 3, line 11, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 113 of the 1998 Act (subordinate legislation: scope of powers) for subsection (1) substitute—
	“(1) References in this section to a power are—
	(a) to an open power,
	(b) to any other power to make subordinate legislation conferred by this Act which is exercisable by Her Majesty in Council or by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(c) except in subsection (9), to the power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under section 12,
	and include a power as extended by this section.”’.—(David  Mundell .)
	Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause s  4 and  5 ordered  to stand part of the  Bill .

Clause 6
	 — 
	Bills: statements as to legislative competence

Tom Greatrex: I beg to move amendment 12, page 4, line 36, at end add—
	‘(1A) In section 31(1) of the 1998 Act, at end add—
	“(1A) A person promoting an amendment to a bill in the Scottish Parliament shall on or before the lodging of the amendment state that, in his opinion, the bill if amended in accordance with the amendment would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament.”.
	(1B) In section 31(2) of the 1998 Act, at end add “and state the reasons for his view.”.’.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Tom Greatrex: We have had the opportunity to discuss a number of amendments with interested parties, including the Law Society of Scotland. This amendment relates to the statements of legislative competence that are made in the Scottish Parliament. The Minister will be aware that, before introducing a Bill in the Scottish Parliament, it is the responsibility of Ministers there to issue a statement of legislative competence. It is also the responsibility of the Presiding Officer to make a similar declaration. The amendment deals with a situation in which amendments are tabled to such Bills, either by Ministers or by Members, including to private Bills. For example, the Bill on the Forth road crossing is a private Bill. Many Members’ Bills are also dealt with in the Scottish Parliament.
	It is important that, when the Scottish Parliament deals with legislation, it is aware that it is competent so to do. It is also important that the measures that come before it are appropriate. That has not always been the case for amendments, however. Our proposal also deals with Government amendments. A number of Bills, particularly technical Bills, have had a whole series of Government amendments tabled for which no declaration of competence has been made. It has therefore fallen to the Law Officers to consider those issues, post-stage 3 and before Royal Assent. Our proposal would enable that problem to be rectified, and would introduce a
	degree of consistency to the arrangements. This would bring confidence and competence to the work of the Scottish Parliament when legislative matters were brought before it.

David Mundell: As the law stands, only those members of the Scottish Government in charge of a Bill have to make a statement on its legislative competence when introducing a Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Clause 6, which amends section 31 of the Scotland Act 1998, will ensure that anyone who introduces a Bill in the Scottish Parliament is confident that it is within the Parliament’s legislative competence and prepared to make a statement to that effect.
	The Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee supports the amendment, agreeing with the Calman commission that a statement would provide a helpful and public indication that the legislative competence of the Bill had been carefully considered by those introducing it. The Scottish Parliament endorsed the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s report on 29 September 2010.
	Amendment 12 would require that the Member promoting the Bill must make a statement, when or before every amendment to a Bill is lodged in the Scottish Parliament, that, in his opinion, the Bill, if amended in accordance with the amendment, will be within the legislative competence of the Parliament. That would make the Scottish parliamentary system overly bureaucratic and complex and it is, in my view, unnecessary. Should there be any concerns about the legislative competence of a Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament, which might have been substantially amended during its passage, UK and Scottish Law Officers may refer questions of competency to the Supreme Court for decision under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998.
	The Calman commission also considered the argument that the Presiding Officer should state his reasons when making a positive statement about the legislative competence of a Bill—that is, a statement that the Bill is, in his view, within competence. This was rejected on the basis that it can be relatively easy to give reasons for thinking that a Bill is outside competence, which the Standing Orders currently require the Presiding Officer to do, but more difficult to give reasons why it is within competence. The commission’s other main doubt was that exposing to public view any grey areas in relation to competence could provide ammunition to those who were politically opposed to the Bill, either during its passage or later, by providing the basis for a legal challenge. As the Calman commission reported, it would remain open to the Presiding Officer to add reasons to any positive statement about the legislative competence of the Bill, but concluded that it was unlikely that he would do so. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment to a Division and to support clause 6.

Tom Greatrex: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, although we reserve the right to revisit the matter on Report.
	Amendment, by leave,  withdrawn .
	Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Partial suspension of Acts subject to scrutiny by Supreme Court

Tom Greatrex: I beg to move amendment 13, page 5, line 28, after Officer’, insert ‘and the Law Officer making the reference under subsection (1)’.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 14, page5,line30,leave out ‘Edinburgh Gazette’ and insert ‘Belfast Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the London Gazette’.
	Amendment 15, page5,line31,leave out ‘considers’ and insert ‘and the relevant Law Officers consider’.
	Clause stand part.

Tom Greatrex: We have discussed amendments 13, 14 and 15 with a number of bodies, including the Law Society of Scotland, and we are attempting to clear things up and respect the doctrine of the separation of powers, so that the Executive can take responsibility for publishing references made by them in relation to the suspension of Acts subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The Bill currently stipulates that the Presiding Officer shall publish the notice of any reference to the Court in the Edinburgh Gazette, and in other ways as he or she considers appropriate. As the Minister will be aware, the references will be made by one of the Law Officers, be it the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate or the Advocate-General. Our contention is that the Law Officer making the reference should also have the responsibility to publish the fact of the reference, whether by publication or on a departmental website, so that it is not left to the Presiding Officer.
	Amendments 14 and 15 deal with the publication of the notice, which the Bill currently states should be in the Edinburgh Gazette. To ensure consistency of approach, we suggest adding the London Gazette and the Belfast Gazette to the list of publications in which a reference must be published. That is significant, particularly as we are dealing with issues that are potentially subject to a reference to the Supreme Court.

Pete Wishart: There has been a lot of talk about the Supreme Court in the past week—it even reached First Minister’s questions last Thursday—whether in connection with the limited references to it, or its being the final port of call for appeals in criminal cases. We need to know exactly what is going on. There has been talk of a number of secret clauses that have been proposed by the Advocate-General. As we understand it, they seek to remove the High Court of Justiciary as the final court of appeal for criminal cases in Scotland and to transfer limited responsibility to the UK Supreme Court. I want to know from the Minister whether those clauses exist. If they do, when will they be introduced? Will this House, as a body of elected representatives from Scotland, have the opportunity to discuss them? Just what will be the general process?

Jim McGovern: The hon. Gentleman mentions secret clauses, but he seems to know what they are, so just how secret are they?

Pete Wishart: I am not in the fortunate position of having seen those secret clauses, although I know of others who have, and they have caused them concern. However, we are discussing a Bill that has always been described as effecting the most significant transfer of powers since the creation of devolution 10 years ago, but we are doing so under what might be described as a cloak of secrecy. We have not had a chance to see those clauses. Why have they not been introduced? Why have we not had the opportunity to see them, and if they are to be introduced, when will we have the opportunity to debate them?
	We have a number of issues with clause 7 that the Minister should consider before we proceed. In effect, it would transfer new, significant and substantial powers to the Law Officers of Scotland. The clause proposes an entirely new mechanism that would allow the Law Officers new responsibilities when it came to legislation, by having the authority to identify provisions in a Scottish Bill that they considered would not be affected by a reference to the Supreme Court. As I am sure we will hear from the Minister, the intention is to allow the Law Officers to refer a part of a Bill to the Supreme Court without affecting the remainder. However, the proposal has come out of nowhere, other than the fevered, exercised minds of the legal establishment in Scotland. It was certainly not considered by the Calman commission, which made no such recommendation. It has simply appeared in the Bill, and I would like to know exactly where it came from.
	The proposals in this clause raise a number of issues of principle and practice. There is simply no precedent for such an approach, and it is unclear what the status of the provisions affected by such a reference would be in law. It is for Parliament or the Government to decide when and how to implement legislation, not the courts. The clause re-describes the relationship between the legislature and the Supreme Court, yet it does not respect the separation of those roles. The clause would also allow the Law Officers to be judge and jury when deciding what the “unaffected provisions” were, and so decide which could or could not come into force. As I have said, these are substantial and significant new responsibilities for the Scottish Law Officers.
	The proposals in clause 7 could also remove from Parliament and the Government the ability to judge on the overall coherence of legislation, and could have implications for the overall will of Parliament. They would also mean that, in making the call on whether to make a general or limited reference, the Law Officer concerned would need to assess whether the affected provisions were central to the Bill or whether it could proceed to Royal Assent without them. We know from our consideration of this Bill that Parliament considers Bills as a whole. Bills contain packages of measures, and support for a Bill as a whole may rest on the inclusion of matters of interest to Members which are not linked to its drafting. The proposals in clause 7 would create uncertainty and bring into question the status of Scottish Parliament legislation in a quite unacceptable way. They would also allow for changes in the law affecting the responsibilities of the courts and the Law Officers.
	The clause is both unnecessary and undesirable, and has the potential to disrupt the good governance of devolved Scotland. I hope that the Minister will take a further look at it, because as it stands we have real difficulties with what is being proposed.

David Mundell: We have heard some unusual contributions from the Scottish National party, in this and other debates, but declaring amendments that the Advocate-General has published on his website to be secret is one of the more extreme. Indeed, I understand that there was an exchange in the Scottish Parliament last week during which, while protesting about the secrecy of the amendments, the First Minister had to concede that he had seen them.
	I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are debating important issues, in that they relate to the laws and judicial system of Scotland, and that is why, in relation to proposed amendments to section 57(2) of the 1998 Act, the Government have adopted a consultative approach. He will be aware that the Advocate-General set up an advisory group to look into the issue. That group came back with certain views, which led to the formation of the clauses concerned, which are now the subject of further discussion and debate. They are not being moved in Committee in this House and are not part of our consideration of clause 7, and they are not referred to by amendments 13, 14 or 15, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex).

Pete Wishart: The Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee has expressed great concern, because it cannot make any judgment on those secret amendments in its legislative consent motion. If those amendments are not to be introduced in Committee in this place, when will they be introduced? When will we, as elected Members, have the opportunity to debate and discuss them? What is the process for introducing those amendments? [ Interruption. ]

David Mundell: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) tempts me to answer that it is a secret, but it is not. Rather, it is part of the full legislative scrutiny of the Bill. As I suggested earlier, and as the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement suggested, we take the issues raised by the Committee, and the specific issues raised in relation to the clause, very seriously.

Cathy Jamieson: It might be helpful for those who are not au fait with all the technicalities if the Minister confirms that these specific clauses are not dealt with in the legislative consent motion that will be debated in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday, and that a further LCM will be required.

David Mundell: That is a helpful intervention, because the LCM that will come before the Scottish Parliament this week relates to the Bill as published, and as scrutinised by that Parliament’s Committee—and also by this House. The LCM the Committee promotes suggests that if there are significant changes to the Bill—and, of course, the proposed amendments to section 57(2) of the 1998 Act would be significant—there would be another legislative consent process with the Scottish Parliament. The Government are clear in that regard. Also, as I understand it, the Scottish Government do not support the LCM promoted by the Committee.

Pete Wishart: When and where is the Minister going to introduce these measures, if, indeed, he is going to introduce them?

David Mundell: As I have suggested—as have the “secret” ministerial statement the Secretary of State made last week, the “secret” LCM Committee report, and the “secret” clauses that are on the website—the coalition Government are engaged in consultation and dialogue on these clauses. Indeed, so generous are we in that regard, that we will even take on board in our considerations the points the hon. Gentleman makes on these matters, but these amendments are not being moved at this stage. There is a further very significant point, which I would have thought would have satisfied the hon. Gentleman given the respect he has for the Scottish Parliament and its views: a further LCM would be required from the Scottish Parliament if significant amendments were being made in relation to section 57(2).

Stewart Hosie: Given the time scales, will it in fact be the next Scottish Parliament after the election in May that will have to consider a further LCM, were one to be requested if such amendments were going to be considered?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is very astute: yes, there will be a Scottish Parliament election on 5 May, and, yes, the current Parliament will be dissolved on 22 March. It is therefore very likely that there will be another Scottish Parliament in place, but this coalition Government respect that Parliament and whatever Government emerge of whatever political colour, and we will engage in a constructive dialogue with whoever is in power in Holyrood.
	On the Opposition amendments, currently entire Bills of the Scottish Parliament can be delayed, possibly for months, should just a single provision be referred to the Supreme Court to determine whether it is within legislative competence. Clause 7 of this Bill will amend the 1998 Act, not in the nefarious way the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) suggests, but in a positive way, to prevent unnecessary delays to Bills where the majority of provisions are considered to be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The affected Bill would be submitted for Royal Assent by the Presiding Officer, while the disputed provisions would not come into force until the Supreme Court had reached a decision and Scottish Ministers had made the appropriate commencement order. The UK Government believe this is the most appropriate and sensible method of helping to ensure that the work of the Scottish Parliament runs as smoothly as possible. Members will wish to note that the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament accepted this provision, but asks for consideration to be made of the legislative procedure used. We will review that recommendation carefully.
	The amendments would require the Law Officer making the limited reference, in addition to the Presiding Officer, to publish notice of the reference in the Edinburgh Gazette and also in the London Gazette and Belfast Gazette. Clause 7 already requires the Presiding Officer to publish notice of a reference in the Edinburgh Gazette and in such other ways as he considers appropriate. It does not prevent the Presiding Officer from publishing notices in the London Gazette or Belfast Gazette, or in any other paper or on any website, or in any other way he should wish—even secret ones.

Thomas Docherty: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can satisfy a curiosity of mine. What is the Edinburgh Gazette, and where may one attain a copy of it?

David Mundell: The Edinburgh Gazette is one of the few newspapers in Scotland in which the hon. Gentleman does not appear. It is a formal publication in which formal Government, local authority and other governmental notices appear. I understand that it can be subscribed to, although it is not regularly available in most newsagents in Scotland. There is also a person with the title of the Queen’s Printer for Scotland, who may also publish notice of the reference in such ways as they consider appropriate.

Pete Wishart: Is it not possible that the Queen’s Printer may be abolished under the Public Bodies Bill? What would happen then?

David Mundell: I will look into the hon. Gentleman’s specific query and write to him on it.
	A requirement on the Law Officer to publish the notice of the reference would lead to three different people being responsible for publishing the same notices, and could be considered overly complicated and unnecessary. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) to withdraw the amendments and to agree to clause 7. I hope I have been able to ease the concerns of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire in respect of possible future amendments to section 57(2) by confirming that the Advocate-General has set up an expert group to look into the issue, and that the group came forward with proposals that were put into the public domain and shared with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee. They are still under consideration, which is why they are not being introduced into this House; we accept that these are important issues on which there should be full discussion, but that discussion is not yet at a sufficiently advanced stage for it to be appropriate to introduce amendments. On that basis, I commend clause 7 as it stands to the House.

Tom Greatrex: I am disappointed in some of the Minister’s responses. I am aware that there is no preclusion on publication in the London Gazette or Belfast Gazette, but, in the interest of transparency, it would be a step forward if the publication were extended, particularly given the issues under consideration. He also rightly said that this means that at least two people have responsibility and perhaps we may consider a further amendment subsequently to deal with that point.
	I had an inkling that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) would discuss the secret amendments. Although the Minister may have had a bit of fun about the definition of “secret”, they suggest that a lack of thought went into the processes that the Government have followed. If they wanted to avoid some of the hyperbolic language from the MSP who spoke to the Scottish Affairs Committee last week or the week before, it may have been sensible for them to have published those draft amendments, to have had a short consultation on them and then to have introduced them to the Bill at the right time. Scrutinising the Bill is very important and although there will be an opportunity
	to come back to those amendments, it would have been much better if we had seen them by now and been able to discuss them in this Committee. I reserve the right to come back to my amendments on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7  ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 8 and  9  ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11
	 — 
	Air weapons

Tom Greatrex: I beg to move amendment 17, page 7, line 26, after ‘weapons’, insert
	“except those intended to be utilised in recognised international sporting competitions”.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 38, page7,line26,after ‘air weapons’, insert
	“below a muzzle energy of 6 ft/lbs”.
	Amendment 3, page7,line27,leave out from ‘1968’ to end of line 34.
	Amendment 18,page7,line34,at end add—
	‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall have the power to issue regulations to deal with any cross-border issues arising from the operation of this section including but not limited to issues arising from the transport of air weapons from, or their use in, Scotland and England and Wales.’.
	Amendment 39, page7,line34,at end add—
	‘(2) The use or possession of air weapons as defined in subsection (1) above which were acquired before the coming into force of any Act or other legislative instrument of the Scottish Parliament made as a result of this section shall until then continue to be subject to any regulations made under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997.’.
	Clause stand part.

Tom Greatrex: There has been much discussion of this issue and I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to this part of our consideration today, so I shall keep my remarks brief. This emotive issue was considered in detail by the Calman commission and I know from my own experience that lengthy discussion has taken place involving the Scotland Office, the Home Office and, on various occasions, the Scottish Government on issues associated with the control of air weapons. The current definition of “air weapons” has often been raised and I was slightly surprised to see that the Bill uses the 1968 definition, because an issue had previously arisen regarding the proper definition of “air weapons”. I am sure that other hon. Members will deal with that in greater detail. I took the opportunity at today’s Home Office questions to ask the Home Secretary when she planned to review that definition and one of her Ministers said that he was not sure but he would come back to me on it at some point. We need to be confident that the definition is appropriate in respect of what the Calman commission recommended on air weapons and therefore what the Bill tries to do.
	Amendments 17 and 18 do not relate to that issue but are probing amendments dealing with a couple of specific areas, one of which is the treatment of air weapons for recognised sporting events and what happens when people travel to the Commonwealth games or another event through England and into Scotland. Amendment 18 deals with cross-border issues—for example, what happens when an airgun is licensed in Scotland but not in England and someone from England takes a weapon without a licence north of the border. The Minister represents a rural constituency on the border, so I am sure he will be aware of the potential for some of these issues to arise. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is a mechanism to deal with any of those issues. I am well aware that other hon. Members wish to discuss this matter in much more detail, so I shall draw my comments to a close.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wish to speak to my amendments 38 and 39. I do so as chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, the secretariat for which is provided by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the specialist shooting body. The BASC has briefed me on these matters and I took some of its members to see the Secretary of State last week, when they were able to put the technical arguments against this matter being included in the Bill and thus becoming a devolved matter. I shall use the latitude that the clause stand part debate provides to make that argument, as well as the one for my two amendments.
	My two amendments are straightforward. Amendment 38 seeks to withdraw all but the least powerful air weapons from these arrangements. Amendment 39 goes some way towards dealing with the cross-border issues that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) described and with the issue of weapons being legal in England and Wales but becoming illegal in Scotland if the matter were devolved and the Scottish Parliament were to use its powers under the Bill.
	In arguing against this becoming a devolved matter, it might be useful if I put the whole thing into context. Shooting contributes £240 million to the Scottish economy and airguns are the entry point into the sport. It is estimated that there are some 500,000 airguns in Scotland, compared with 4 million to 7 million in the UK as a whole. They are owned for a variety of lawful purposes, such as target shooting and pest control. The majority of airguns do not carry any serial or other identifying number, and very few need to be held on the authority of a firearms certificate because their capacity is below 12 ft/lbs. The location of nearly all current owners is unknown.
	Some 52% of all Scottish airgun crime takes place in the Strathclyde police area and this appears to be an urban problem, rather than a countrywide problem. The call in this Bill for the devolution of airgun legislation has been made following the tragic death of two-year-old Andrew Morton, who was shot with an airgun by 27-year-old Mark Bonini, a drug user from Glasgow. The subsequent tabloid outrage and a campaign by the Scottish nationalists has resulted in a “Scottish appetite” for airgun legislation to be devolved, despite the fact that the current criminal justice system worked by sentencing Mark Bonini to life imprisonment.
	There is therefore really no need for any further amendments to the firearms legislation. Numerous pieces of legislation are available to the police across Great Britain to deal with the misuse of airguns and three further pieces of airgun legislation have recently been passed by Westminster: the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, and the Crime and Security Act 2010. The Scottish police can also use the offence of reckless discharge, which is not available south of the border.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman said that 50% of these incidents took place in the Strathclyde police area and that there was some sort of link with this being an urban crime, not a rural one. Given that the Strathclyde police area stretches from the Dumfriesshire border with Ayrshire into the lowlands of the highlands, I am puzzled as to how he makes that link between urban crime and the Strathclyde police area.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It comes from the number of offences that have been reported—no more, no less. The average number of Scottish airgun offences per annum since 1996 is 565 and the number of incidents has been falling since 2006-07.
	The apparent rise in the use of airguns is likely to be the result of improved police reporting procedures, but other weapons, especially knives, are much more likely to be used in homicide offences in Scotland and, indeed, elsewhere. There is nothing peculiarly Scottish about airgun controls or crime, so there is no justification for creating a system for Scotland that differs from the current regime in England. It is not enough for Ministers to wash their hands of it on the ground that the democratic process will produce the right answer. The campaign for the devolution of powers regarding airguns has been fuelled by tabloid scaremongering such as that around the recent incident in Auchinleck in Ayrshire. It was initially reported that 18 schoolchildren had been shot by a sniper armed with an airgun equipped with a muzzle, but it later turned out that eight children had been hit by plastic pellets from a BB toy gun.
	The coalition has rightly resolutely opposed knee-jerk legislation on firearms that is not based on sound evidence. The Calman commission produced no argument for devolving powers on airguns beyond the statement that
	“there is appetite to deal with airguns differently in Scotland.”
	I submit to the Minister that that is not a good basis for legislating on this matter. The commission produced no evidence to back that up.
	The coalition has advocated having easily understood legislation that protects public safety, whichever part of the United Kingdom one comes from. Public safety is endangered by complex firearms laws, and having a different regime for airguns in Scotland will increase the complexity of firearms laws. Devolving power over airguns will destroy the internal logic of firearms legislation as a reserve power and will fuel calls for the devolution of all firearms law, which I note the Bill specifically does not do; all the most serious firearms legislation is still reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. There are already 36 offences that can be applied in relation to airgun misuse. The most recent legislation—the requirement
	in the Crime and Security Act 2010 to ensure that children do not have unrestricted access to airguns—came into effect only last month.
	There is good evidence to suggest that increased powers, proper enforcement and education are behind the fall in airgun misuse that is most pronounced north of the border. The Government and Parliament are in the middle of a review of firearms legislation in the wake of Whitehaven, and Parliament is awaiting a response from the Home Office to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report on firearms. Devolving power over airguns in Scotland would be premature, would ignore the wider review and would mean having piecemeal legislation on firearms in response to outrage, which would damage effective legislation and enforcement. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has stated that
	“in the ideal world, for the sake of lack of confusion…one set of legislation would be the best option”,
	and that, given the number of airguns in circulation,
	“in relation to cost and resources from a policing perspective, there would be a definitive impact”.
	It has also said that regulating airguns in Scotland could be difficult and costly. It stated:
	“Ideally, we would prefer them to come under the Firearms Act”—
	that of 1968, to which the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West referred, and that of 1997, in particular, both of which are referred to in my amendment—
	“so we don’t have two sets of rules.”
	If a licensing system of air weapons was introduced, it would have a disproportionate effect on the operational capacity of the Scottish police forces. As I have said, they would not have the time or the manpower to deal with the issue properly. The new work load would require a serious displacement of staff from other more important fields such as crime prevention and detection. Any change to laws on airgun ownership proposed by the Scottish Government could criminalise an estimated 500,000 law-abiding airgun owners in Scotland overnight. The consequences of any change in controls over air weapons in Scotland would not be confined to Scotland, but no consultations have been launched to canvass the opinions of people in England and Wales who might be affected by such changes when they travel over the border. Any ban on air weapon ownership imposed by the Scottish Government would adversely affect trade and would lead to a significant bill for compensation for those who legitimately own air weapons. Is the Minister going to pay compensation to those people who suddenly find themselves with illegal weapons, or will the weapons simply become useless, in which case those people will lose out considerably?
	The absence of border controls between Scotland, England and Wales is likely to lead to non-compliance. If the Minister doubts that, let me cite an example. Since the 2004 English ban on self-contained air cartridge firearms, which are often called Brococks, of the 70,000 estimated to be in circulation, less than 10% have been registered, so there is widespread breaking of the law, but few people that I know of have been prosecuted because it simply is not possible to find them. Major restriction on air weapon ownership would make it
	impossible for Scotland to host the Commonwealth games or other major sporting events, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West pointed out.
	Let me put my suggestions and alternatives to the Minister and then I will conclude. Education is having an impact. BASC, which I have mentioned, runs “young shots” days, and the Scottish Countryside Alliance offers next-generation days, at which BASC Scotland provides airgun and shotgun tuition to teach and remind many hundreds of youngsters about the safe and proper way to use airguns—something to which we would all subscribe. We should continue to encourage the police to circulate BASC’s airgun codes of practice, which already reach tens of thousands of people, and focus on enforcing existing law. We should also encourage people to try target shooting with airguns at clubs so that people of all ages can learn about the safe use of airguns in a controlled environment by qualified instructors and realise that airguns are capable of inflicting a lethal injury if misused.
	I have to say to the Minister that I think the whole airgun issue has been driven by a tabloid press feeding frenzy on one or two incidents. I understand that, and the same thing would happen if those incidents occurred in England.

Jim McGovern: The hon. Gentleman mentions the tabloid press. I am sure he is aware that in the past week or so, the tabloid press have had a feeding frenzy about two football coaches in Glasgow falling out with each other, but there does not seem to have been the same feeding frenzy about an England football player taking an air weapon to a training ground and shooting someone.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome that intervention. I take any infringement of airgun law very seriously indeed. Anyone who has an airgun, firearm or shotgun should use it safely and according to the law. I do not diminish incidents when they happen; I am merely saying that whether they happened in Scotland or England there would be the same tabloid coverage. I simply say, in all seriousness to all concerned, that I think we are better with one set of UK-wide firearms legislation, given that this is such a serious subject, so that everyone who uses a firearm of any sort, whether a shotgun, airgun or licensed firearm, knows exactly what the law is. Having different laws in the Principalities of the United Kingdom will lead to trouble.

Pete Wishart: Doing things differently in Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom is what we call devolution, and I say to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that we make no apologies for representing our constituencies and communities. If this is the legislation that our communities want, it is up to us as their elected Members to secure it.
	I strongly welcome the clause and I congratulate the Calman parties on introducing it. It is one of the few examples in the Bill of a real and positive transfer of powers from the Scotland Office to Scottish Ministers, in recognition of the very significant and different issues in Scotland. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds mentioned the tragic incident in 2005 when young Andrew Morton lost his life at the hands of someone with an airgun. It was not the tabloid press but his parents who started a remarkable campaign to bring the issue to
	public attention, and they were supported in that cause by politicians, civic groups and everyone who took an interest in the subject.

Michael Connarty: I worry when a Scottish National party Member accepts the kind of smear on Scotland that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made. If we look at the press in England, we see there has been a succession of shootings and killings using handguns, not airguns, in and around the cities of England. The seriousness of the issue of deaths being caused by those carrying firearms is much greater in England than in Scotland, so let us not get things out of perspective.

Pete Wishart: I will come to the issue of firearms, which is central to our amendment, in order that we can, in Scotland, have responsibility for firearms, as well as for air weapons, which are, as we all acknowledge, a significant problem in our community. It is important that we have legislative responsibility for all such weapons in Scotland so that we can make our own laws, not just in regard to airguns, but in regard to all serious weapons.
	A fantastic campaign led to calls for Scotland to secure legislative competence for airguns, which we are doing today. It led to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, writing to Jacqui Smith several years ago to ask that Scotland be considered as a pilot area for the licensing of airguns, and subsequently to a summit of all stakeholders to consider the problem in Scotland and propose a way of dealing with it. Many interesting issues were explored at that firearms summit. The Scottish Government went as far as publishing the necessary parliamentary order to transfer the power quickly so that they could start to deal with the issue in Scotland.
	Why do we want legislative competence? I have explained why we think the situation in Scotland is different and why Scotland needs the power, but what we can do with it? This might satisfy the hon. Member for The Cotswolds about our intentions: it is not about trying to stop sporting events or getting in the way of the Commonwealth games. That is nonsense. They will go ahead. Many constituents of mine enjoy and participate in events with all manner of rifles and I have no problem with that.
	The power would allow us to examine the issue seriously. The intention is to put together a Scottish firearms consultative panel involving all the key stakeholders to establish a range of views on the issue. One of its first tasks would be to develop and consider the merits of a pilot licensing scheme for air weapons. This would enable the Scottish Government to test the practicalities of air weapon licensing. It would also test whether air weapon licensing can operate effectively without wider reform of the firearms legislation. A pilot could take place in one or more areas in Scotland.
	Our strong view, as I said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), is that air weapons are only part of the story when it comes to dangerous weapons in Scotland. At the firearms summit in 2008 there was clear agreement that the current firearms legislation is not fit for purpose. Something must be done to improve the situation. It needs to be comprehensively reviewed. I accept that a review is taking place and we will wait to see its conclusions, but
	we need action. If that cannot happen at UK level, and if the legislation is not satisfactory, we insist that firearms legislation control be handed to the Scottish Government so that we can make our own decisions about this critical issue.

Ian Davidson: The hon. Gentleman speaks about dangerous weapons. As he knows, more people are killed in Scotland by knives than by guns of any kind. Since its inception, the Scottish Parliament has had full control over knives, yet that problem has not been resolved. Will he clarify for me why he has such touching faith that simply transferring control over air weapons to Scotland will resolve the matter, when having full power over knives has not done so?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the topic of knives. I am sure he would be the first to congratulate the Scottish Government on reducing the number of knife-related incidents in Scotland in the past few years. It is a remarkable achievement that in four years of SNP government, we have made real progress in reducing knife crime significantly.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that he wants to go further than the Bill by devolving all firearms legislation to Scotland. The Scottish Bill Committee, in which he placed so much faith at the beginning of the proceedings, was split on the vote. Clearly, it is not the overwhelming opinion in Scotland that all firearms legislation ought to be devolved.

Pete Wishart: I accept that, but it is our strong view that all firearms legislation should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament because it would enable us to ensure that we could deal with all the issues relating to firearms.

David Mundell: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman defined who “our” is. As he knows, the Scottish Government have tabled their own draft legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, in which they agree with the clause and do not suggest that there should be any further devolution of powers in relation to air weapons.

Pete Wishart: As I said at the start of my remarks, we welcome the clause. It is a real transfer of power—one of the few transfers of powers in the Bill. Of course we support the clause. I have argued consistently that our intention is to improve and strengthen the Bill to deal with some important issues. If our amendment is accepted, we have an opportunity to deal not only with air weapons, but with firearms in their totality. Surely that is a better situation to be in than having responsibility for just one aspect.

David Mundell: rose —

Pete Wishart: I know that I will get the same sort of question again, but I will give way to the Minister.

David Mundell: I do not want to be picky, but in the LCM that the Scottish Government have lodged, they suggest a significant number of amendments to the Bill and state their views on re-reservation and so on, but they are clear that they support the clause as it stands.

Pete Wishart: Indeed, we do support the clause as it stands. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is an astute follower of what happens in the Scottish Parliament, so he will have heard Kenny MacAskill and other colleagues saying on several occasions that what we require in Scotland is full control over all firearms legislation. That was the outcome of the summit held back in 2008 and that is what we seek to achieve this evening. We can achieve it. All we need to do is get the Committee to support us on amendment 3 this evening.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how that would operate? I deal with firearms quite a lot in my constituency. I would like to hear what the difference would be if legislative control were transferred. The regime is very strictly run by the police, and the laws encompass everyone in the UK.

Pete Wishart: I am about to come to that. Let me explain first what we are trying to achieve with the amendment, and I will then deal with the hon. Gentleman’s wider point. He may intervene again if he feels that he is not getting a satisfactory response.
	Our amendment deletes a small section that states that power over the control of “specially dangerous” weapons remains with the Secretary of State. It ensures that the Scottish Parliament will have the power to legislate for all air weapons, including the “specially dangerous” weapons that require a firearms certificate. The Bill as it stands includes a power for the Secretary of State to designate “specially dangerous” air weapons, which would then fall under the reserved regime that applies to all other firearms. In that case, the power would lie with the UK Government and Ministers and would not be subject to any approval from Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament.
	We therefore propose that the relevant power be exercised with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, even if it is not transferred. We believe that this is important because there are different and distinct issues relating to firearms in Scotland. I do not want to mention specifically all the tragedies that have taken place. We have only to recall Dunblane several years ago to recognise the very real issues that we have in Scotland involving firearms. It would be much more sensible for all firearms to be under one control in one central point. Scottish police forces have taken great interest in our plea and they would be interested in developing and exercising it.
	We want to avoid complication. Our amendment would devolve legislative competence for all air weapons to the Scottish Parliament. I intend to press the amendment to a Division because it is important. This is one of the few opportunities that we will get to improve the Bill significantly and ensure that all weapons are included in it. It is a small measure designed to improve the Bill, as we said we would, and I urge the entire Committee to support it.

Cathy Jamieson: I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this part of the debate. I hope it will be one based on the experience of representing an area that has had its fair share of difficulties with airguns, and of four years as the Justice Minister in Scotland, including at the time of the incident that has been referred to when a toddler lost his life in the east end of Glasgow as a result of an air weapon. Far from responding
	to any media frenzy, I hope that I was able as a politician to respond to the real tragedy for people in the local community, not least the child’s parents, who witnessed the event and had to deal with the consequences.
	At that point, when there were demands for an immediate, all-out ban on air weapons, I took the view that we should take a considered approach that looked at the evidence and brought together the police and other organisations. At that stage I met a number of those organisations. I believed that it was best to deal with the situation not through a piecemeal approach, but by working with the UK Government to secure changes on sentencing and tightening the legislation, which we did, and with a view to looking at how a licensing regime could operate in Scotland in future. I welcome the clause that will give the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to do something about this.
	Let me make a few comments to clear up some misunderstandings about the types of areas where there have been incidents with air weapons. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said that most of these incidents occur in the Strathclyde region. If he looks at a map of the Strathclyde region, he will see its size and scale and note that it takes in not only cities and large towns, but small towns, rural areas, remote rural areas, islands and everything in between. It is not entirely accurate to suggest that because the figures relate largely to Strathclyde it is not a problem for the rest of Scotland. Indeed, the opposite could be argued; the region takes up so much of Scotland that if it is a problem there, we can be pretty sure that it is a problem elsewhere.
	The hon. Member for The Cotswolds also mentioned an incident that occurred only a couple of weeks ago in Auchinleck, which is in my constituency. Of course, not absolutely everything that appears in the tabloid press is 100% accurate. Only a few weeks ago there was some interesting reporting of a junior football match between Auchinleck Talbot and Cumnock Juniors that suggested that mounted police were involved in something akin to the charge of the Light Brigade. A constituent suggested to me that when the horses came on to the pitch it was more like dressage than a charge, so I understand that things can be exaggerated. However, in an era of mobile phones and 24-hour news, I also understand that any incident witnessed in a local community is likely to get into the public domain quickly, as people will report it to newspapers or online, perhaps on Facebook. Indeed, that is where many of my constituents first heard about the incident in Auchinleck.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does the hon. Lady share my experience that the abuse of air weapons often involves not only the cases that make the newspapers, but the distressing circumstances of much-loved family pets being injured or killed when shot at? Those stories never make the headlines, but they nevertheless cause great distress in communities.

Cathy Jamieson: I absolutely agree. Of course, those are the types of incidents that local newspapers report far more regularly than national newspapers.
	Information about the incident in Auchinleck quickly got into the public domain, some of which was not absolutely accurate. A number of school pupils were
	injured, albeit by what the hon. Member for The Cotswolds described as a toy BB gun—I have more to say on that in a moment—and required hospital treatment, so I hope that he is not suggesting that it is not necessary to have a serious look at how that gun got into the hands of the people who used it, what they were doing with it and why they became involved in such an incident. To be honest, I recognise where he is coming from in relation to his sporting and shooting interests, but I find it difficult to understand in any event why anyone living in an urban environment would require an air weapon in their home. It is time we looked at the issue, and I hope that that is something a licensing or other regime in Scotland could deal with.
	I want to say something about firearms in general. I accept many of the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but I do not believe that at this stage we require responsibility for the whole range of firearms legislation to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, I do think that it is incumbent on the UK Government—perhaps the Minister will indicate what discussions he will have or has had with Home Office colleagues—to ensure that the provisions of the 1968 Act still stand the test of time. The worst possible thing that could happen is that we devolve something and discover subsequently that we will have to revisit it, for example if the definition of what constitutes an airgun is no longer seen to meet the needs of the legislation we are devolving.
	I want to say something on BB guns, because I know that in many instances they are the weapons—I use the word “weapons” rather than “toys” because of the damage they can inflict—that cause exactly the problems that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) identified. I also believe that there is a gap in the legislation, because those weapons appear to be easily available, particularly to children and young people. The fact that they are not covered by legislation sends entirely the wrong message. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister will have discussions with his Home Office colleagues to take that forward.
	I appreciate that other Members want to comment in the debate and so do not intend to speak for much longer. I feel that the time is right, and I have given the matter careful consideration because my initial response when Justice Minister, as I have said, was that we should not legislate or press for legislation in haste. It is four years since that time, and considerably longer since the incident in Easterhouse, so no one could accuse us of legislating in haste when we take these measures forward.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady is making a cogent and reasonable case, and I am interested to hear what she has to say as a former Justice Minister. In the Andrew Morton case, as I said in my contribution, Mark Bonini was sentenced to life imprisonment, so what does she think it is about the current laws that is not working and needs to be modified?

Cathy Jamieson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I say to him gently that the people of Easterhouse, and perhaps people more widely in Scotland, feel that legislation that would prevent someone like that from having an air weapon in their home in the middle of Easterhouse would be of assistance. That is why there is strong support in Scotland for a ban on air weapons.
	That is not the province of any particularly political party, but something that has united people across political organisations and local communities.
	I said that it is not about legislating in haste. I believe that the time has come to look at how we can ensure that no other family goes through the same trauma as did the family in Easterhouse, but we will do that by having workable legislation. I end on a note of caution, because there are a number of areas where I think a great deal of further work needs to be done to ensure, for example, that the cross-border issues are manageable. We need to look at that in detail. It is entirely possible to look at exemptions for sporting activity, and I know from my previous experience in the Scottish Parliament that fruitful discussions were held, and I am sure continue to be held, on the transport and use of guns for sporting activities. This should not be the end of the matter. If the proposal is included and the Bill passed, it will be a stepping stone on a journey to ensure that, wherever possible, we avoid such incidents as have been described and are able to look at how best the existing firearms legislation throughout, importantly, the United Kingdom can be strengthened. In particular, I make the plea, which I shall repeat when the review reports, for the careful consideration of including in legislation BB guns and weapons like that to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands.

Anne McGuire: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). For those colleagues who are not aware of her work as a Justice Minister, I hope that they will see what she managed to do when she held that difficult position and airguns became a major issue in Scotland. I acknowledge what she did.
	I fear that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for whom many in the House have great respect, has taken a big hit tonight, because in prosecuting his case he fails to understand that the issue of air weapons is slightly different in Scotland. That is why we feel it important to allow the Scottish Parliament to regulate air weapons in Scotland. I, like the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), have a large rural constituency, and I have had no correspondence—letters or e-mails— at all on the issue, yet many in my constituency see air weapons as part of an introduction to country sports, and I fully recognise that.
	I fear also that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds anticipates what a Scottish Parliament might do with such powers, but he has to recognise that it has Members with urban constituencies and many with rural constituencies, and they will take into account the balances that have to be struck to ensure that they do not undermine a way of life or an activity that is important to many communities in Scotland.
	When the legislation banning handguns was passed in 1997, one argument was that it would undermine sporting activity. That has not happened, because in that legislation we ensured that there was a tight regime and that any sporting activity was conducted in a safe context. That is what we are asking for in the Bill before us, because the debate has thrown up some issues that could cause confusion if they are not attended to properly.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that we need to be clear about what we are doing in passing this element of the Bill. Indeed, on Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether he had consulted his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that we had the definitions right and did not allow some air weapons to fall outside the legislation. I should still be interested to know what discussions he or his departmental colleagues have had with the Home Office to ensure that we get the definitions right.
	I fully support the probing amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has tabled, because the issue is not just about passing this element of the Bill, but about instilling in the House the confidence that, in passing the legislation, we have in place all the other elements that are required to make it an effective piece of devolution, while maintaining safety both north and south of the border and not allowing for any confusion, which might exist if we do not get the legislation right for those people who, as the Minister will know, cross the border regularly. I hope that he will deal with the specific issues that have been raised. This is an issue not of principle, but of detail, and I hope that he will be able to give us some assurances this evening.

Michael Connarty: I approach the issue from a slightly different position. I support clause 11, because it is sensible to route such decisions to the Scottish Government, and amendments 17 and 18, which I hope the Government will take on board. Strangely, in a Committee of the whole House, Members do not necessarily receive from the Government the moderate responses that they would if they were in Committee off the Floor of the House and outwith the view of the television cameras. Often, Ministers see the sense in amendments and accept them, but this is a much more public arena, so we might not get from the Government Front Bencher tonight the sensible response that we would have had if we had been off the Floor of the House. That is one of the problems of this theatre, as some people regard the Chamber.
	I have had to handle many matters to do with guns—to do with normal firearms—because there is quite a large shooting fraternity in my constituency. My constituency is mostly urban, but it has a rural hinterland where people shoot in clubs, to get rid of vermin, which is what farmers consider rabbits to be, and they go further north to shoot deer. It is an urban environment, and with reference to the remarks of my good Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), strangely, where somebody lives does not necessarily determine whether it is right for them to have a weapon of any kind; the question is what they are going to use it for, whether it is properly secured and whether they are properly licensed, controlled and monitored by the police.
	I hope that in this Bill we are giving to the Scottish Parliament the power to think about—in keeping the whole thing in perspective—what I would call regulation rather than prohibition. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) is partly concerned by the idea, whipped up by whomever, for whatever reasons and with the aid of whatever quality press, that we are talking about—and we do use the phrase—a ban on airguns in Scotland. I hope that that is not the case, and we are not talking about someone running such a campaign.
	The problem with prohibition, which was very well exhibited in the USA when they tried to ban alcoholic drink, is that the banned item just goes underground. In that situation, weapons would not only be used but traded, and unfortunately a large number of illicit users might misuse them, so I hope that the Scottish Government are sensibly thinking about a regulatory regime for air weapons. People say that a licensing scheme will cost so much money that it will be easier or, certainly, cheaper to introduce a ban, but I hope that in Scotland there is a sense of perspective, so that the issue, when it is transferred, will be about regulation, not prohibition.
	That is not at all to diminish the serious effects of the deranged misuse of such weapons. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was right to point out that a lot of damage is done by misuse, particularly to domestic animals in our communities. I am sure that it does not happen just in communities in Scotland, either, and that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds did not mean to smear the good name of urban communities in Scotland, because we know of the terrible catalogue of murders by people using guns—firearms, not airguns—in England. I am sure that airguns are misused a lot in communities in England.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for a long time and, in fact, as long as I have. I did not in any way mean to smear the people of Scotland, as he has inferred from my remarks; that was not what I said at all. Does he, in turn, recognise that the vast majority of firearms offences and, indeed, airgun offences are carried out by unlicensed users? We can have in place whatever regime we like, but those offences will still occur from time to time.

Michael Connarty: I wish that we could expunge from the memories of the people of Scotland, particularly central Scotland, the fact that a licensed gun owner used guns that were then allowed to create the carnage at Dunblane. It is not wrong to say that by regulating and banning the possession of handguns we did something very positive. There are times when controls are needed. In the United States of America, people can buy what are basically machine guns over the counter; we cannot, thank goodness. This obviously has a lot to do with the person who misuses the weapon, but it is also about its availability in the first place.
	I hope that whatever regime is introduced in Scotland will be strict. A regular firearm user who is a hunter recently came to see me about relicensing and could show me that they had a strongroom that was totally secure, which meant that access to their guns would be very difficult for anyone. Their licence was approved by the local police, and it was a very thorough operation. I do not know whether that operation could be replicated for airguns, but that would stop a lot of the illicit possession. It is much easier for the local community around the area to know that someone is misusing such a gun if they possess it without a licence, in a similar way as applies to the possession of ordinary guns. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun agrees with that.
	I hope that the Minister is listening to the support for these small amendments, which are useful and helpful. With apologies to those who aspire to have this in Scotland because we are Scottish, there are some serious
	types of airguns that should be licensed universally on an all-UK basis. That will not undermine the ability of our communities to know that people who have unlicensed airguns can be immediately notified to the police to have those firearms removed.

David Mundell: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Benton.
	I can assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that nothing that the Government put forward this evening is in any way determined by the fact that these proceedings are televised. I hope that we are bringing forward a reasoned response to important issues that have been raised in the debate on these amendments.
	I wanted, during this discussion, to clarify the SNP’s position, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will understand why. I think that the logical explanation is that we now have devolution in the SNP, with a London SNP that is proposing an amendment to clause 11 and an Edinburgh SNP that is in agreement with it as it stands. In those circumstances, I find it extremely odd that the hon. Gentleman suggested that he was going to push this matter to a Division. He will have seen the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee report, which, in paragraphs 142 to 144, confirms that it was a unanimous view of that Committee that clause 11 should be supported. It states:
	“We note that this excludes those air rifles, air guns or air pistols which are of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the 1968 Act to be ‘specially dangerous’. These particular weapons are already banned and we see no reason why this would change.”
	The Committee went on unanimously to recommend support for clause 11.

Eilidh Whiteford: I have here a copy of the Scotland Bill Committee report, which came out last week. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 142 and the footnote attached to it, he will see that in fact there was a division on that point and the view was not unanimous at all.

David Mundell: The hon. Lady will also be aware of the text of the LCM to be put forward by the Scottish Government. Her Scottish Parliament colleague, Fiona Hyslop, kindly sent it to me, listing several clauses to which the Scottish Government want changes made. Clause 11 is clearly stated not to be one of them.

Eilidh Whiteford: May I once again draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 142 and footnote 28, which clearly show that two members of the Committee, Brian Adam and Tricia Marwick, caused a split on the issue? Will he acknowledge that for the record?

David Mundell: I acknowledge for the record that the vote took place, but I also point out to the hon. Lady annex A, where the minority views on the issues on which her colleagues felt particularly strongly are set out, clearly stating their disagreement.

Stewart Hosie: This is not good enough. The Minister said that the Bill Committee was unanimous, but the footnote makes it clear that it was not—there was a division and a split vote. Will he now take the opportunity to correct what he said so that the Committee is not inadvertently misled by his earlier remarks?

David Mundell: I certainly would not want the Committee to be misled by anything that I said. I referred to the paragraphs in the Scotland Bill Committee report, where it is clear that the Committee formed the view that it did. It is also clear that the Scottish Government have come forward with an LCM that supports this clause as it stands.
	Clause 11 devolves a power to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the regulation of air weapons. This would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate, if it wished, to create a separate regulatory regime for air weapons in Scotland. Members will wish to note that, as I said, the Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament accepted the provision, and we wait to see the outcome of the debate on its LCM and the LCM proposed by the Scottish Government.
	After careful consideration, the Calman commission concluded that firearms law should not be devolved in full. It is generally acknowledged that the UK already has some of the toughest firearm controls in the world and that the current unified regime represents the best way of tackling the problems that exist in relation to armed crime. The commission did recommend devolving power over a specific category—air weapons. The Government agree with this recommendation. Air weapons are the type of guns most often involved in firearms offences, and given the nature of their misuse most frequently to cause criminal damage, as we have heard, they are best controlled at the level closest to those affected. Reference was made to the specifics of the recent incident in Auchinleck, which demonstrated and reaffirmed the continuing concern in Scotland about the use of air weapons.

Cathy Jamieson: Given the Minister’s comments, will he make it clear for the record that if the clause goes through and the Bill is passed, a future Scottish Parliament could, if it wished, ban air weapons completely?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady makes an important point that also relates to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). In fact, passing the clause will not in itself ban air weapons of the category defined in Scotland. That is a point that I want to make to my hon. Friend.

Cathy Jamieson: I appreciate that, but the point I was trying to get at, although perhaps I did not make myself clear enough, was whether, if the Bill is passed, the Scottish Parliament could enact a complete ban on air weapons if it chose to do so.

David Mundell: The Scottish Parliament will be able to enact a complete ban on air weapons that fall within the definition. The important point for colleagues such as my hon. Friend is that those who do not agree with that course of action will be able to argue their case in the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) set out a strong case on the basis of her considerable experience, respected views and strong beliefs. I felt that my hon. Friend also set out a strong view, although Opposition Members and indeed Members of my party in the Scottish Parliament might not subscribe to it. It is important that people who hold
	such views move the argument on to the Scottish Parliament if the clause is agreed to, because that is the appropriate place for the debate to take place.

Michael Connarty: Will the Minister clarify the other point that he made? If I understood him correctly, he said that the air weapons that are not covered by the Bill, which the SNP is trying to amend so that they have power over such weapons, are already banned. The only thing that could be done differently would be to unban them. The SNP is therefore asking for the power to unban weapons that are banned. Is that correct?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful intervention. The division that took place in the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament, to which we have referred, was on exactly that point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would make a nonsense of all firearms laws if the Scottish Parliament banned air weapons completely, because people would still have legitimate licences for serious firearms, while airguns would be banned? Does he agree that that would be a complete anomaly?

David Mundell: I do not accept that it is inevitable that the clause or the Bill will lead to an anomalous situation. As I have said, it is for those who advocate a ban to make their case and for those who believe that it would be a retrograde step to make theirs.
	As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said of her time as Justice Minister—I am sure this is also the case with the current Justice Minister—the Scottish Government need to have a close working relationship with the Home Office and the Home Secretary to ensure that there is a coherent interlinking of the measures determined here and in Scotland, just as with any devolved matter. I assure the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) that there have been discussions on all aspects of the Bill with the relevant Departments. The Secretary of State for Scotland has met the Home Secretary. We are clear that the clause will provide the Scottish Parliament with the powers it needs to deal with air weapons, as proposed by the Calman commission.

Anne McGuire: Will there be a clear definition of what exactly is understood by “air weapons”? It is not the discussions that are important, but the definition and the clarity of the legislation.

David Mundell: I will come on to that later in my remarks. We are satisfied that the definition, as set out in this legislation, is appropriate to deal with the issues raised by the Calman commission.

Cathy Jamieson: Given my concern about BB guns, will the Minister answer the question that I posed about whether he has had any discussions with the Home Office on that matter? Is there a way to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can deal with that problem?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady has just under three weeks to raise that issue in the Scottish Parliament in her capacity as a Member of that Parliament. On a UK basis, I am happy to undertake to raise with the Home Secretary the concerns that she has set out this evening.

Stewart Hosie: That answer was interesting. Presumably it means that BB weapons, such as those that have been described, are not covered by the legislation, in terms of being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?

David Mundell: My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament would at this stage be able to take forward its own proposals in relation to a gun or implement of that type. As I understand it, we are not at the stage of having a definition for the weapon in relation to the incident, but there are implements of that nature for which the Scottish Parliament already has the power to make provision, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the Minister confirm that BB guns are covered by the 1968 Act?

David Mundell: There are definitions in the 1968 Act of certain weapons. A BB gun is not defined as a type of gun in that regard. It would be within the remit of the Scottish Parliament to make provisions in that regard as part of its ongoing responsibilities.
	The clause will allow the Scottish Parliament the freedom to design its own controls over air weapons, while allowing the UK Government to retain a consistent regulatory framework across the UK for the most dangerous weapons. That will send the clear signal that the UK does not tolerate deadly weapons. As I have said, it is important to note that we are considering not what law on air weapons should apply in Scotland, but who should be responsible for taking that decision. The clause will not automatically create a separate regime in Scotland, but it will give the Scottish Parliament responsibility for that decision. Any consideration of an alternative regime will require the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and other stakeholders to listen to all the views represented in Scotland and, crucially, to work through any cross-border issues that arise.
	Amendment 39 would ensure that the 1968 Act continues to apply until the Scottish Parliament puts a new regulatory regime in place.

Joe Benton: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the background noise is getting too high and it is difficult to hear. I want to hear the Minister.

David Mundell: Thank you, Mr Benton.
	I assure my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds that the control of air weapons in Scotland will not fall into a state of limbo. By devolving power, we are not disapplying the present regime, but simply allowing the Scottish Parliament to change the laws that currently apply to air weapons, should it so wish. Until such a time, the existing rules will apply. I therefore suggest to my hon. Friend that his amendment is unnecessary.
	Amendment 17 would prevent the Scottish Parliament from putting any controls on air weapons intended for use in recognised international sporting competitions. The Government recognise the legitimacy and responsibility of those who take part in safe and undoubtedly well-regulated use of air weapons for target shooting purposes. We fully accept that individuals engaged in such activity are highly unlikely to misuse their weapons.
	I also understand concerns that devolved powers could be used in such a way as to prevent such competitions from taking place in Scotland and that that would affect disciplines in the Commonwealth games. Although I understand that the air pistols and air rifles used at that high level of competition are relatively expensive and built to high specification for their grip and accuracy, it would be difficult in practice to distinguish those intended for such use from other high-spec weapons that are used in lesser competitions or for hunting small game or for vermin control.
	The Calman commission took the view, and the coalition Government agree, that there is a case for air weapons being controlled at the most local level. We must accept that the natural result of devolution is that separate rules may apply in different areas of the UK. Apart from the question of principle, it would be confusing and potentially difficult to split air weapons into different categories when there is no clear difference in muscle energy between a gun used for competition shooting at an international level and one used for lesser competitions or other sporting purposes.
	Amendment 38 would restrict the power of the Scottish Parliament to air pistols and air rifles with a muzzle energy below 6 foot/lbs. That means that any air rifle that has a muzzle energy between 6 and 12 foot/lbs would not be subject to any new controls that the Scottish Parliament tried to introduce, but remain subject to the Firearms Act 1968. Most modern air rifles fall within that range. Anything above what is already declared to be “specially dangerous” by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the 1968 Act becomes subject to the requirement to hold and abide by a firearms certificate under section 1 and will not be devolved. It is right to retain a common framework across Great Britain for the most lethal weapons. As I have already said, I see no reason to try to split responsibility for the lower powered air weapons that we are devolving in the Bill. Calman did not recommend that, and it is wrong that the Scottish Parliament should not be able to exercise control over the majority of air rifles in use today.
	Amendment 3 would omit the words in the exception to the reservation, which provides for the Home Secretary to retain powers for declaring air weapons “specially dangerous”. Those are subject to stricter controls because they need to be tackled on a consistent basis throughout the United Kingdom. The effect of declaring an air weapon “specially dangerous” is that it becomes subject to the requirement to hold and abide by a firearms certificate under section 1 of the 1968 Act. Currently, air pistols that generate a muzzle energy in excess of 6 foot/lbs and other air weapons that generate a muzzle energy in excess of 12 foot/lbs are declared to be specially dangerous for those purposes.
	In essence, air weapons that are the subject of such rules or orders are classified as firearms under section 1 or prohibited weapons under section 5. Since the regulation of such firearms and prohibited weapons will remain reserved, as recommended by Calman, it follows that the power to decide what is a section 1 firearm or a prohibited weapon should also remain reserved.
	Amendment 18 would address cross-border issues, which several hon. Members raised. We should remind ourselves that the Bill is simply devolving the power to regulate air weapons—not setting out the framework
	for regulation itself. Any discussions about future operational challenges are therefore largely hypothetical at this stage. How far any alternative regime will differ from that which applies in England and Wales has yet to be determined. As I said, I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds to try to ensure that the debate that he set out this evening moves to the Scottish Parliament, if it is to consider those matters. Of course I accept that there could well be differences in its approach to controls, but that is a natural consequence of devolution.
	The Scottish Government will, of course, need to consider carefully how any new controls in Scotland will dovetail with the law in England and Wales, Europe and the rest of the world. I am sure that they will consult widely if they choose to change the law. If the Scottish Government introduced licensing for air weapons, they would need to consider what form of temporary licence a visitor from outside Scotland needed on or before entry. Any such temporary licence could not be checked if the visitor’s first port of call was England or Wales, so the Scottish Government would need to think about how they might enforce such a requirement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend address the point that I made before he concludes? What will happen to those people who currently have air weapons that are perfectly legal but would become illegal if the Scottish Parliament changed the rules? Would they be compensated?

David Mundell: It would be entirely for the Scottish Parliament to determine what regime it introduced if it created a restriction. It would not be a matter for the coalition Government. There was no suggestion of compensation from this Parliament or Government.
	I recognise the strength of feeling of hon. Members of all parties on the issue. As I said, there are important implementation matters to be considered, alongside awareness raising and education to ensure that those who currently hold and use air weapons lawfully are not unwittingly affected. However, I would argue that these are questions for the Scottish Parliament. Today, we are considering whether to support the recommendation of the Calman commission, which the Government have included in the Bill and has the support of the Scottish Parliament Committee. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments to a vote.

Tom Greatrex: I am disappointed with some of the content of the Minister’s response. In respect of amendment 17, I understand that the Scottish Parliament and the SNP—whether the Edinburgh SNP or the London SNP—is included in a cross-party understanding of what is required to ensure that the Commonwealth games are properly protected. I am sure that that will endure.
	I am more confident about that than on the Minister’s comments on amendment 18. The amendment is intended to be helpful to the UK Government, which has a responsibility to ensure cohesion, so that things do not slip through the net.
	I was concerned with the Minister’s hesitation on BB guns in response to my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for
	East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell). They highlighted the point on definitions that I tried to make at Home Office questions earlier. I hope that he will reflect properly on that prior to Report, particularly in the light of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire).
	I am conscious that a number of hon. Members are in the Chamber and I am sure they have other things to get on with this evening. I hope the Minister reflects on my proposals. If he is unable to change his mind, we may return to them on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: 3, page7,line27,leave out from ‘1968’ to end of line 34.—(Pete Wishart.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 8, Noes 392.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Tom Greatrex: On a point of order, Mr Benton. In exchanges on clause 7, the Minister responded to a comment from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about so-called secret clauses and said that they had been placed on the website of the Advocate-General. We have subsequently sought to find those clauses on that website, but have been unable to locate them, so can you advise the Committee on how we might be able to do so?

Joe Benton: That is not really a point of order to which the Chair can respond, but I will allow the Minister to clarify the position.

David Mundell: I will e-mail the hon. Gentleman with the relevant details.

Stewart Hosie: Further to that point of order, Mr Benton. The Minister has generously offered to e-mail those secret amendments to the Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party. I take it that he will want to communicate with the whole Committee, so placing the amendments in the Library would be more helpful.

David Mundell: I am happy to accede to that request, Mr Benton.

Clause 12
	 — 
	Insolvency

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tom Greatrex: I support clause 12, but I have a couple of questions about its implications. As the Committee will be aware, this clause and attendant issues were the subject of detailed scrutiny by the Calman commission. It was corporate insolvency practitioners who pressed the case on that commission for introducing such a clause, which effectively re-reserves some aspects of corporate insolvency work.
	The Scottish National party has responded with a blanket, knee-jerk reaction against the proposal, because it does not believe that powers should be re-reserved. The Labour party takes a different view. The Calman commission examined the range of powers as a whole, and determined which, in Scotland’s best interests, should be devolved and which should continue to be reserved. As we all know, it concluded that there should be some changes, but not too many. We accept that recommendation, and also the comments of the LCM Committee, but the
	Scottish Federation of Housing Associations—from which Members will no doubt have received a briefing—has expressed concern about the implications for registered social landlords. Housing policy is, of course, devolved.
	I am aware that, as no registered social landlords have been affected yet, the position is theoretical. However, on 25 February the Secretary of State told the convenor of the LCM Committee that the Government did not intend to cause any difficulty relating to housing policy, that they would consider introducing section 104 orders when that was necessary and appropriate, and that discussions were taking place between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. May I ask the Minister to confirm his intentions, so that we can ensure that the federation’s concern is not used unduly as an excuse to oppose the clause merely because it re-reserves a power, and that it is being dealt with?

Eilidh Whiteford: I am glad to have an opportunity to respond to the amendment in a way that does not involve any sort of knee-jerk reaction. I intend to discuss the substance of the issue, which is the power to transfer power over all insolvency matters and all aspects of company liquidation back to the House of Commons. Currently, certain aspects are devolved.
	When the Commission on Scottish Devolution examined the issue it identified some shortcomings in the existing set-up, notably a degree of overlap in responsibility between the rules relating to insolvency governed here and those governed in Holyrood, and a need for consistency across the United Kingdom. As many Members will know, the Calman commission responded to the concerns expressed by, in particular, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Law Society of Scotland by recommending that the United Kingdom’s Insolvency Service should be responsible for the rules to be applied by insolvency practitioners on both sides of the border, with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and that the Scottish Parliament should retain its legislative competence over corporate insolvency.
	Members will note that clause 12 goes way beyond the Calman recommendation. It would transfer powers over all aspects of company liquidation to the House of Commons. I urge the Committee to think very carefully about the clause, because I believe it is a rather blunt instrument which could have a number of undesirable and unintended consequences. I suspect that there is broad agreement in the Committee that the existing legislative framework pertaining to insolvency in Scotland could be strengthened and improved, but the real question is how we should go about it. Should we, as the clause suggests, simply re-reserve powers—which might be a quick and dirty way of dealing with the matter—or is there a better way of achieving the desired outcomes of consistency and efficiency?
	I fear that clause 12 will create as many problems as it solves. We should bear in mind why the powers were devolved in the first place. The purpose was largely to take account of the distinctiveness of the Scottish legal system. When Professor George Gretton, the Scottish law commissioner and expert on insolvency, gave evidence to the Calman commission, he stated emphatically:
	“Insolvency law has to fit in within the general corpus of the law, including such matters as the different court structures, the different systems of what Scots lawyers call diligence, the different systems of property law, and the law of voidable transactions.”
	He pointed out that the aspects of corporate insolvency law that had already been devolved by the Scotland Act were pretty much aligned with the areas that were peculiar to Scots law. The issue was thought through carefully in the first place, and I feel that we too should think carefully before unravelling the existing provisions without taking account of the wider implications.The chair of the Scottish Law Commission, Lord Drummond Young, has also expressed concern about the implications for the sensible reform of Scottish commercial law, should these powers be re-reserved.
	As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has already pointed out, some of the deepest concerns about the consequences of the clause have been expressed by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which has argued against it in the strongest possible terms. Members of that association own and manage 47% of Scotland’s affordable rented housing stock. They have an annual turnover of about £1 billion, and assets worth about £8 billion, so we should not take their concerns lightly. Housing is a fully devolved matter, and the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate on all aspects of housing policy. There have been a number of changes to housing policy since the advent of devolution, as well as significant policy developments. This has been a dynamic area of activity in the life of the Scottish Parliament.
	Back in 2001, in an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998, responsibility for legislation relating to the insolvency of social landlords in Scotland was devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The amendment order was agreed unanimously, with cross-party support, in the Scottish Parliament, and the provision was passed in Westminster. The amendment enabled the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to address the potential insolvency of registered social landlords. The 2010 Act established the Scottish housing regulator as an independent body to safeguard tenants’ interests and regulate the financial well-being and governance of registered social landlords.
	Assessing the risk of insolvency among registered social landlords is an integral aspect of the existing regulatory regime. The 2010 Act also gave additional powers to the Scottish housing regulator to act quickly when a registered social landlord was facing insolvency, thereby safeguarding the interests of tenants and of the wider social landlords sector. There have been no cases of insolvency among Scottish registered social landlords in the past 40 years, but those representing the sector are not at all complacent, given the economic environment in which they are operating and the experiences that they have seen in other parts of the UK. They believe that there needs to be provision for a regulatory authority to deal with such matters in a timely and appropriate way, should cases of insolvency arise.
	The regulatory framework that has been established in Scotland is designed to reduce the possibility of a social landlord becoming insolvent by preventing the situation from occurring. I am sure that Members will appreciate the importance of that, not only for tenants and social landlords but for the wider housing sector and other stakeholders. In particular, effective regulation is crucial to the ability of registered social landlords to access lending at competitive prices. The Council of Mortgage Lenders made that clear in its response to the 2007 consultation, and it is estimated that Scottish
	registered social landlords have saved about £70 million in the past five years by being able to access lower lending margins than are available in the commercial sector.
	All this provides a practical illustration of why a strong regulatory framework is important, and why these matters were devolved in the first place. We really should not be rash enough to dismantle that framework. We must also bear in mind the fact that, if we pass clause 12, any future measures relating to the insolvency of registered social landlords would require legislation at Westminster, with all the difficulties of securing time that that involves. We need to recognise the practical benefits of devolution in this area, and not try to reinvent the wheel in our efforts to tidy up the loose ends in the wider insolvency provisions.
	In housing, there is a strong case for preserving the coherence and alignment of the legislative policy making and regulatory frameworks. This would be broken if insolvency powers over registered social landlords were to be re-reserved. If the main reason for clause 12 is to tidy up insolvency provision from a UK point of view, it would be most regrettable if it were to make housing policy significantly more untidy in the process. I have a real concern that, in time, such a dislocation of policy from regulation could lead to delays, fragmentation and inappropriate decision making. It would be a retrograde step, and it would reverse recent progressive measures that have had the support of the Scottish Parliament right across the political spectrum.
	I urge Members to look again at this matter. We need modernisation of the insolvency provisions; that will be very welcome. This is not the way to do it, however. There are many ways of doing it, and key to the process will be better inter-governmental working. I would also draw the House’s attention to the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee, which took these concerns seriously and recommended that legislative consent on this clause should be subject to certain provisions being drafted. We are not in a position to see those provisions today, so I would urge Members to oppose the clause in the interim, until we have a workable and effective solution before us.

Michael Connarty: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who has both conflated a lot of issues that are of obvious concern to her party and not been quite open about what happened on the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee. We have heard what seems to be a strange argument: the SNP is for devolution unless it does not win the vote, because on a devolved committee the SNP moved an amendment and lost. Then the committee concluded that it was
	“content to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that it should give its legislative consent to the provisions in the Scotland Bill relating to the re-reservation of insolvency, subject to provisions being drafted which will secure capacity for devolved legislation to affect the winding-up of Registered Social Landlords”.
	On the one hand the hon. Lady is conflating lots of issues of obvious concern to her party, but on the other she is denying the democratic process when it goes against her in the devolved Parliament.
	The third thing that the hon. Lady has done is make a case as though that case were not recognised by everyone, on all sides, in the evidence given to this Parliament.
	Hopefully, the Government are listening to that, and those on our Front Bench have stressed the same points. However, there is another fault that people show when trying to enthuse people—I think that the common phrase is “overegging the pudding”. There has not been a bankruptcy or insolvency of a registered social landlord in Scotland in 40 years, because of the way in which their arrangements are structured. I was active in the early days of the housing association movement as a leader of a council in Scotland. Across all the parties we created a structure that mainly secures registered social landlords from the problems experienced by those landlords who are thirsting for profit and therefore taking risks by borrowing and overextending themselves. Registered social landlords are to be commended because they tend not to get themselves into such situations, which is one of the reasons we set them up as we did.
	Everyone takes seriously the point made by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, including those on our Front Bench and, I hope, the Government. Therefore, we should have the necessary safeguards to allow the points made by the SFHA to be taken on board. The SFHA is worried about the speed of action should there ever be a problem, and hopefully the final legislation will recognise that. However, we cannot conclude from this that we should therefore go against the recommendation of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee and against common sense in having a system across the UK to address a problem that faces a lot of the corporate bodies and private organisations in the UK at the moment.

Eilidh Whiteford: This is an argument that has come directly from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which is concerned about preventing such problems from occurring in the first place. It is the SFHA that is worried about the environment in which it currently operates. I know that we will shortly debate housing benefit in this House, but one of the SFHA’s concerns is that changes to housing benefit could have serious repercussions for cash flow. It is concerned that the financial position is not as secure as it might have been. That is why we have to take this issue seriously. I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman’s optimism, but hoping that something might come forward is no way to go through the parliamentary process.

Michael Connarty: Allow me to recommend that optimism to the hon. Lady, who is new to the House. That optimism, which I have carried with me for 18 years, might stand her in good stead if she survives as long as I have in this place. They do say—I am quoting Gramsci, the socialist—that pessimism of the intellect should breed optimism of the will. She will certainly require that again and again if she sits on the SNP Benches in this place, I can tell her that.
	I am deeply involved in fighting a case involving a bad insolvency in my constituency. In a sense, I have had to step over a line that I have drawn for myself since devolution, where I have had to say, “This is not a matter for me: I have a remit as a UK parliamentarian and my colleagues”—Members of the Scottish Parliament—“have a remit devolved to them.” I try to keep the two apart quite strictly. I try to encourage
	devolved organisations to write not to me but to my MSP colleagues, and to engage them properly in the process. I was involved in the scrutiny of bankruptcy in Scotland legislation here in Westminster between ’92 and ’97, and knew quite a lot about that. I therefore find the current environment frustrating, as many companies are facing serious challenges because of economic conditions and are having to go through the insolvency process.
	Although the case I took on involves what is currently a devolved matter, I knew that re-reservation was being reconsidered, so my conscience was somewhat assuaged. The reality is that the insolvency process is not very pleasant. It is never pleasant for people to be bankrupted or to have their goods and chattels sold by a bankruptcy administrator who seems to be their friend until the moment when they sign the form, and who then turns out to be their enemy. In the case I am currently involved in, there is a house for sale. The insolvency administrator has allowed it to be vandalised, so quite a lot of the financial benefit to the creditors has been lost, and seems to be ignoring any offer from anyone to buy the property.
	This issue should be a responsibility across all the Chambers, and I think it makes sense for the same rules to apply in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. The Bill’s provisions would bring them into line. We should all realise that it does not matter which side of the border people are living on or trading in, and that they must be dealt with properly by the insolvency laws and its practitioners. I have serious reservations about the way they are currently regulated. I look forward to this being returned to being a reserved matter so that I can fully engage in it.

David Mundell: Clause 12 implements the Calman commission recommendation that the UK Insolvency Service should be made responsible for laying down rules to be applied by insolvency practitioners on both sides of the border. The commission was persuaded by evidence from stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, that a consistent approach to winding up would bring significant benefits to insolvency practitioners, creditors and others dealing with insolvent companies in both England and Wales and in Scotland. Many windings up involve groups of companies that operate on both sides of the border, and it will be more efficient in terms of both time and money if the same winding-up rules are applied to each insolvent company in the group, except where Scottish common law dictates otherwise.
	As a result of the proposals, the reorganisation of groups of companies will be more efficient and lead to increased returns for creditors and shareholders. Group reorganisations may involve subsidiaries being wound up, and a common approach to winding-up rules would help reduce the cost and complexity of group restructuring where constituent companies operate in both Scotland and in England and Wales. In its evidence to the Calman commission, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which regulates most of the insolvency operators working in Scotland, highlighted the benefit of consistent rules in promoting a more stable environment for corporate recovery and turnaround.

Angus Robertson: I am interested in what the Minister says about having the same rules across an economic single market. By that logic, is he arguing that this should be not a UK competence, but a European competence across the single market in which we all live?

David Mundell: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, and his party’s position in relation to matters European, which, as I understand it, would have Scotland as a member of the euro, which I steadfastly disagree with.
	The Law Society of Scotland reported in its evidence to the commission that, because of the increased number of insolvencies of groups of companies, practitioners have for a number of years been having difficulties where parts of the group are subject to the English rules and part to the Scottish rules. The Calman commission was persuaded that a consistent approach should be taken to winding up rules, and the UK Government agree. The commission recognised that its first option for implementing its recommendation—UK legislation followed by a legislative consent motion—might not be achievable, so it suggested primary legislation amending the devolution settlement as an alternative means of securing the desired effect. The first option would not fully and effectively transfer legislative and Executive competence in this area, and that could result in continuing divergences in the rules. That would frustrate the objective expressed by the Calman commission, which is why we are adopting the second of the commission’s options and re-reserving the winding up of business associations in its entirety.
	Schedule 2 is introduced by clause 12. Having just one Parliament responsible for the rules relating to winding up in Scotland will aid flexibility and responsiveness, and address problems that have been reported by insolvency office holders when the law changed in one jurisdiction but not the other. In fact, we are seizing the opportunity that the Bill provides to deliver for Scotland the benefits of modernisation changes, some of which have been in place in England and Wales—and for the existing reserved insolvency procedures in Scotland—for nearly two years. These changes lift administrative burdens by allowing insolvency office holders to make full use of advances in information technology made over the past quarter of a century to communicate with creditors, thus reducing the costs—for the benefit of creditors.
	The changes were made to reserved insolvency procedures in Scotland in 2009 and 2010 by a combination of legislative reform orders and subordinate legislation, but because of the division of responsibility for rules between the UK and Scottish Parliaments the changes could not at that time be extended to windings up taking place in Scotland. That is an example of some of the unnecessary and confusing divergences that have developed between the two jurisdictions about which the Calman commission expressed concern. We are taking steps to address that concern and thereby ensure that creditors of windings up taking place in Scotland are able to enjoy similar benefits to those provided for creditors of windings up in England and Wales.
	I wish to deal specifically with the points raised about registered social landlords. In that context, I fully agreed with the appraisal of the hon. Member for Linlithgow
	and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) of the contribution of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I accept that she has legitimate concerns, which she raised in the Scottish Affairs Committee. As part of my appearance before that Committee, I undertook to meet representatives of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. I am pleased to report to this Committee, as I have done to the Scottish Affairs Committee, that that meeting has taken place and we were able to have a full discussion about these concerns.
	The first and most important point is that no change to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 will be brought about by these measures. They will not change the provisions of that Act or the regime and regulator that were put in place; they will not change the insolvency processes envisaged by that Act. Part of the concern appeared to be about what happened if the insolvency procedures put in place by that Act did not work and had to be changed, and whether this House would be as responsive in dealing with those concerns as the Scottish Parliament. I know that the hon. Lady has a fundamental view about the balance between the former and the latter. However the experience of not just this Government, but the previous one, when the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) was in the Scotland Office and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) was aiding her, suggests that the UK Government have demonstrated a willingness to support the legislative intentions of the Scottish Parliament. The Insolvency Service is held in particular regard for the measures it has brought forward to modernise insolvency practice in areas for which it has responsibility in Scotland and, indeed, in England and Wales. I am pleased to report that the Insolvency Service will meet the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations at the beginning of April to discuss any specific ongoing concerns that might still exist.

Eilidh Whiteford: Will the Minister clarify exactly which issues remain outstanding with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations that necessitate a further meeting?

David Mundell: Following our meeting with the federation, I wrote extensively on the specific points that I had raised. My interpretation concerned whether Westminster would be as responsive as the Scottish Parliament if new issues arose. It is extremely important to take on board that this is about new issues and not about the adequacy of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010. That Act is in place, as are the arrangements for insolvency. The issue is whether, if the arrangements that have been put in place did not work and other arrangements had to be brought in, that could be done expeditiously in the House of Commons, and I believe it could. Indeed, one Opposition Member is the former distinguished Communities Minister of the Scottish Parliament and I cannot imagine that she would allow the Government to sit idly by while there were requests for changes to insolvency procedures in respect of registered social landlords in Scotland. That issue is not a basis for continuing concern, but we are committed to the dialogue involving the Insolvency Service and the federation.
	It is important to re-emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk confirmed—that the Scottish Parliament’s current powers
	in relation to RSLs are not whole powers regarding RSL insolvency. They relate only to the winding up and only where it concerns a moratorium on the disposal and management of property held by an RSL, so the Scottish Parliament is not currently able to make provision for all aspects of the law on RSLs. The view of the Calman commission was that the ability to make provision in this area was fragmented and should be returned to Westminster to deal with that fragmentation. Clearly, there are Members who could never agree with the return of powers to Westminster, however sensible that might be, but I hope that on this occasion they will accept that the measure will benefit Scottish business and will not be detrimental to the RSL sector. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will not divide on clause 12.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 357, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Benton. You might not be aware, having been in the Chair, but apparently the Scottish nationalists have been tweeting tonight that Labour MPs voted not to devolve Government responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. I would be very grateful if you advised me what we as MPs can do to ensure that all SNP Members are aware of the actual facts, rather than just twittering.

Joe Benton: I have heard the point of order, but as it is not a procedural point I cannot rule on it. I am very sorry.
	Schedule 2 agreed to

Clause 13
	 — 
	Regulation of the health professions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tom Greatrex: I rise to support clause 13 on the regulation of health care professionals. In some ways, it falls into the same category as the one we described in relation to clause 12. The Calman commission looked at an issue, and in this instance it decided that the best interests of Scotland would be for the issue to be dealt with on a UK-wide basis. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said that her response to the previous issue was not a knee-jerk one; I assume that she or one of her colleagues will now rise to explain that there will not be a knee-jerk response to this issue. There seems to be a pattern emerging: when the Calman commission recommends that things be done at a UK level, it must be wrong, and when it recommends that they be done at a devolved level, it must be right. I am afraid that that does not strike me as consistent with serious consideration of these issues.
	Since the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, several new categories of health care professionals have come into existence. In some instances, their regulation has been less than complete, and when they require regulation, it is appropriate that it is done in the same place. That proposal has been supported by the Calman commission and by the Scotland Bill Committee, and it was reflected in the White Paper and in the draft Bill. The Health Professions Council, NHS Lothian and others have supported this as a sensible approach. In evidence to the Holyrood Bill Committee, the Health Professions Council observed that
	“there is widespread consensus that a consistent UK-wide approach to the regulation of health professions is both appropriate and beneficial to professionals and the public.”
	This is beneficial to the public and consistent for the professionals.
	We support the clause instead of trying to find a reason to object to it simply because it reserves a power. That does not strike me as a sensible way of dealing with the issue. However, no doubt the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will now try to enlighten me.

Pete Wishart: I rise to oppose the clause. This is part 2 of the great Calman clawback. Presumably we are going to see an attempt by the Tory-led Government to take powers away from the Scottish Parliament, once again with Labour complicity and support.
	The Bill is characterised as one that gives powers away to the Scottish Parliament, but the previous clause and this clause demonstrate that one hand most definitely giveth, but the other most definitely taketh away. We oppose the clause, first, because it is anti-devolutionary, and secondly, and most importantly, because it is not necessary. The Scottish Parliament is totally in control of Scotland’s health services. Scottish Ministers are responsible to the Scottish Parliament and, in turn, to the Scottish people for the structure and delivery of health services. We have our own national health service in Scotland.
	The Scottish Parliament has a direct interest in ensuring that Scotland’s particular needs and circumstances are taken into account in decisions made about the health service in Scotland, including the regulation of its work forces. Since 1999, we have developed a different NHS in Scotland—one based on the needs of the Scottish people.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman talks about the regulation of work forces. Does he therefore believe that we should have a separate Health and Safety Executive for Scotland?

Pete Wishart: There would probably be a strong case for that. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. In Scotland, all the regulations for the regulation of health professionals that existed before the 1998 Act came into force are continuing to be regulated at a UK level from the Department of Health. That includes nearly all doctors, nurses and dentists. The Scottish Government have a little toehold into regulation as regards important new professions that have been designed since the 1998 Act came into force—for example, operating department practitioners, dental nurses, dental technicians, orthodontic therapists, pharmacy technicians and practitioner psychologists. It is incredibly important that we do not lose that toehold.

Alan Reid: If the hon. Gentleman were consistent, he would be arguing that all the health professions should be regulated in Scotland. Surely it does not make sense for dentists to be regulated UK-wide and dental technicians to be regulated in Scotland, but for them all to be regulated in one place.

Pete Wishart: There is eminent logic in what the hon. Gentleman says, and there is very little of it that I could not support. Of course all these important health professionals should be regulated in the Scottish Parliament.

Alan Reid: rose —

Pete Wishart: I will give the hon. Gentleman another shot.

Alan Reid: I said that the professions should all be regulated in one place. It is the hon. Gentleman who is saying that they should be regulated in different places.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I was saying. Of course they should all be regulated in one place, and that should be the Scottish Parliament. They should be under the direct control of Scottish
	Ministers, because we have a Scottish national health service—perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of this—that has been designed and structured by Scottish Ministers who are accountable to the Scottish people.

Tom Greatrex: I do not wish to involve myself in the spat that has been entertaining us, but given that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there is a different health service in Scotland that has different professions, will he explain which medical professions exist in Scotland that do not exist in England?

Pete Wishart: I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked that, because that is one of the things that I am most keen to come on to. If he is not satisfied by what I say, I ask him to come back on me, because I will list some very important professions that receive regulation from Scottish Ministers.
	The most important point is that we have the toehold that I have described. All the UK devolved Administrations work together on these important issues to find innovative practices and new ways of doing things. That is important work. The current arrangements support and create dialogue and the sharing of ideas in reserved and devolved areas.
	I come to the examples that the hon. Gentleman is so keen to hear about. The first is practitioner psychologists. The Department of Health originally wanted all such professionals to be educated to doctorate level. That would have posed major problems for the NHS in Scotland, where the majority of them are trained to masters level. That is why we need separate regulation. NHS Scotland has also piloted the position of physician assistant, which is an assistant to medical practitioners. Unlike their equivalents in England, such people can prescribe and work across a variety of roles in the Scottish NHS. Those are not the only two examples. Health care scientists were identified as a priority for regulation in the 2007 White Paper, in which the Department of Health proposed that the new education and training arrangements envisaged for England should also apply in Scotland, where there are different needs and a different educational system. Perhaps it has escaped the hon. Gentleman that as well as having an NHS in Scotland, we also have our own devolved education service. The training of many such professionals requires different regulation and different standards.

Anne McGuire: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has explained exactly why Scotland needs different regulation from the rest of the United Kingdom. Will he tell the Committee how many health care scientists are practising in Scotland and who currently regulates them?

Pete Wishart: I am disappointed in the right hon. Lady, because she usually does better than that. She has clearly not been listening to what I have said. I have given three examples of new professions that have emerged since 1999 and that have benefited from separate regulation in Scotland, but there are more. Why would anyone want to re-regulate those professions, which have given such key benefits to the NHS in Scotland?

David Mowat: For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Gentleman clarify that it is his view that there are no health care scientists in England?

Pete Wishart: Of course there are health care scientists in England, but they are trained differently. Scotland has different educational institutions that require different regulation from those in England. That is why we are saying that it is important that these responsibilities rest with Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament.

Anne McGuire: rose—

Pete Wishart: I have given way once to the right hon. Lady. I hope that she wants to make a new point.

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my first intervention yet. [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) would just face the front and fold his arms, the world would be a better place. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) argued that people are trained differently in Scotland and should therefore be regulated separately. Health care professionals such as doctors and nurses come from other countries where they have been trained differently, but we still regulate them in the same way when they practise in this country. His argument is therefore specious.

Pete Wishart: Doctors who come to the NHS in the rest of the UK are subject to UK regulation. The NHS in Scotland is a different beast from that in the rest of the UK. That is the point. The NHS has been developing for the past 10 years and we have to recognise that.

Ann McKechin: rose—

David Mowat: rose—

Fiona O'Donnell: rose—

Pete Wishart: I have a real choice here. I will give way to the shadow Minister.

Ann McKechin: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is proposing a separate Scottish college of nursing, bearing in mind that the Royal College of Nursing certifies not only all nurses in the United Kingdom, but courses across the Commonwealth? Is he suggesting that Scottish nurses would not benefit from that level of certification?

Pete Wishart: Perhaps I will stick to the amendment and put the case for continuing to leave the matter in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

Fiona O'Donnell: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman has got me animated about the issue because it seems so clear-cut. What would the position be for someone who trains as a health scientist in Scotland? Could they work in England or would they be regulated to work only in Scotland?

Pete Wishart: Reciprocal arrangements work across a variety of jurisdictions. Of course a health scientist trained in Scotland could work in England. We have a separate NHS, which has developed differently from the NHS in the rest of the UK in the past 10 years—that seems to have escaped hon. Members in the debate. It has new professions that require different regulation.

Ian Murray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I have given way enough—I did not want to spend so much time on this, but I have been generous in giving way to several Labour Members. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Go on, then.

Ian Murray: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, even at the second attempt. Does he agree with the NHS in Lothian, which covers my constituency, and the Health Professions Council, which gave written evidence to Holyrood when the Scotland Bill Committee sat? It stated:
	“We observe that there is a widespread consensus that a consistent UK-wide approach to the regulation of health professions is both appropriate and beneficial to professionals and the public.”
	Why does the SNP differ from that approach?

Pete Wishart: I have no doubt that that is exactly what was said, but the only evidence taken by the Calman commission was from two royal colleges, which talked only about doctors.

Fiona O'Donnell: rose—

Pete Wishart: I have already given way to the hon. Lady. The UK Department of Health evidence to the commission concluded:
	“The Department of Health is not seeking any change to the reservation of the health professions in the Scotland Act 1998. In practice, both the Government and the devolved administration have always sought to apply a UK-wide framework to the regulation of health”.
	It is not interested in re-reserving the issue, and I do not know why we are.
	We have a different NHS in Scotland, and it is recognised that the implementation of some policies would have to be different in Scotland. Given that the provision is clearly anti-devolutionary and not in the interests of the NHS in Scotland, we will not support it, not because of any knee-jerk response but because of the examples that I have mentioned and that I hope have been accepted by the Committee. We have a toehold in regulation across the UK, we will not give it up lightly and we will oppose the clause.

Alan Reid: I am fully behind the Government on the clause. If we listened to the advice of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), we would end up in a confused position. If we joined him in the Lobby tonight, some health professions would be regulated UK-wide and others would be regulated in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman referred to some dental professions that would be regulated in Scotland while dentists would be regulated UK-wide. That is clearly an anomalous situation.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the sky would fall in if we had an anomalous situation?

Alan Reid: We would end up with a much worse situation than the position whereby all professions were regulated UK-wide. The latter makes much more sense. I understood from the answers that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire gave to interventions that he wants all health care professions to be regulated separately in Scotland from the rest of the UK, although
	I note that the SNP has not tabled an amendment to that effect. It would lead to a strange situation, which would not benefit patients.

Ian Davidson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is in error to suggest that SNP Members did not articulate the fact that they want all the professions to be separately registered in Scotland. The spokesman said that he wanted doctors and dentists to be regulated separately in Scotland—even more evidence that he is a bad man.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct—[hon. Members: “Oh!”] I did not say in what he was correct. He was correct when he said that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire stated that he wanted all professions regulated separately in Scotland. However, my point was that SNP Members have not tabled an amendment to that effect, which I suspect indicates that even they lack confidence in their case.

Fiona O'Donnell: Perhaps I could assist the hon. Gentleman in correcting my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). He was wrong in omitting to point out that not only did the Lib Dems come sixth in Barnsley, they lost their deposit.

Alan Reid: I suspect that if I respond to that intervention, Mr Hoyle, you will rule me out of order.
	To go back in order, if as the SNP suggests all health care professions—doctors, dentists and so on—are regulated separately in Scotland, it would add more cost and bureaucracy. It would also mean that a doctor who is qualified in Scotland and who wants to move to England would have to get separate qualifications, and vice versa. That would not benefit patients, and nor would it assist professional development.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Michael Weir: rose—

Thomas Docherty: rose—

Alan Reid: The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) was first.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman find it strange that a nation would want to regulate its own health professionals?

Alan Reid: The cures for diseases are the same throughout the world. The cure for measles in Scotland is not different from the cure in England.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman making the case for worldwide regulation?

Alan Reid: I was giving way to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).

Michael Weir: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. Do we not already reciprocally recognise qualifications within the EU, and is it not the case that doctors can come from other parts of the EU to practise in the UK? Therefore, what is the problem with the recognition of Scottish qualifications and Scottish regulation?

Alan Reid: Simply put, those arrangements would add a new layer of bureaucracy and waste time. Currently, a doctor can move from Scotland to England or vice versa with no problem whatever. The hon. Gentleman simply wants to put bureaucracy in the way.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and the Minister, who represent the north-west of England and the south-west of Scotland respectively, are both in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) will probably be aware that many of their constituents, and the constituents of Members on both sides of the House, will travel to use services on both sides of the border. Does he not agree that this debate is another example of the tabling of Mickey Mouse amendments to slow down the process by a party that will come worse than sixth in the forthcoming elections?

Alan Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on cross-border traffic, which is important, but he gives SNP Members more credence than they deserve. They did not actually table an amendment—they did not put that amount of work in—and are simply opposing the Government. If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire had been consistent, he would have tabled a new clause to the effect that all health professions would be regulated separately in Scotland, but he did not bother to do so. He is simply opposing a sensible Government measure.
	I meant to speak for only a minute or two, but all those interventions took up quite a lot of time. I conclude by reminding the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) that in the Henley by-election, the Labour party were fifth with a lower share of the vote than the Liberal Democrats got last week.

Ian Davidson: Is it appropriate at this point to mention that fifth is actually higher than sixth? I have been approached by a number of Members in the Lobby who have told me that the Liberal Democrats came sixth only because the SNP did not stand—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we both know that this is not quite a part of the clause 13 stand part debate. If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not part of that, I call the Minister.

David Mundell: Thank you, Mr Hoyle, and welcome to this debate, which I can see you are already enjoying.
	I did not intend to speak for long. I was looking forward to the erudite contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on why Antarctica should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, and how after 12 years of devolution, Antarctica has been discovered to be an important matter for which the Scottish Parliament must have responsibility.

Pete Wishart: I am also disappointed about Antarctica. However, is the Minister pleased that Antarctica will now join time and outer space in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act?

David Mundell: I think that schedule 5 of the Scotland Act is the appropriate place for Antarctica.

Thomas Docherty: I would speculate that the reason the Scottish Parliament should have responsibility for Antarctica is that there are probably just as many Liberal Democrats in Antarctica as there are now in Scotland.

The Chairman: Order. We are dealing with health professions. We have not quite got to Antarctica yet, so I think we will ignore that part.

David Mundell: I accept your ruling, Mr Hoyle, although it is sometimes important to point out to Opposition members that for the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament there was a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition.

Angus MacNeil: I would love to know why the Minister thinks that London rather than Edinburgh should have responsibility for whatever portion of Antarctica we are talking about. Is he ashamed of Scotland? Why should it be London? Why should Scotland not have that power? What is he ashamed of?

The Chairman: Order. We are discussing health. We are not discussing Antarctica.

David Mundell: We have learned tonight that London SNP has control over Edinburgh SNP, because it is the Westminster SNP Members who determine the response to the Scotland Bill, and not their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, who have a completely different point of view on a number of these measures.
	The Scotland Act 1998 provides that the regulation of certain health professions is a subject matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Clause 13 implements the Calman recommendation to reserve the regulation of all health professions, not just those specified in the Scotland Act. The clause re-reserves the regulation of health professions, and I can confirm that the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee has stated that it is not opposed to the re-reservation of powers to the UK Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will vote on the Scotland Bill on Thursday, and we await the outcome of that vote, as I have said previously. Further, devolution is not a one-way street, and the Scotland Bill, like Calman, is about delivering a balanced package that works for the people of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) said. The Scotland Bill does just that: it updates the Scotland Act with a two-way transfer of powers.
	Since Royal Assent of the Scotland Act, the regulation of any health professions not regulated by the legislation listed in section G2 of schedule 5 has been a matter that falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Westminster Parliament was, therefore, unable to introduce legislation to regulate such professions without such legislation also being approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament. Although the Scottish Parliament has had the power to introduce for Scotland separate legislation in respect of the regulation of these health professions and any other health professions not included within section G2, it has chosen not to do so and instead has approved the use of the existing, reserved machinery orders made under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 to regulate new groups of health care professionals.
	The Calman commission criticised this mixed economy and considered that the current situation was unnecessarily time-consuming and cumbersome owing to the need to obtain agreement from the Scottish Parliament. The
	commission also pointed out that the current mixed economy presented risks in terms of consistency that could lead to the fragmentation of standards across the UK and threaten the mobility of practitioners across all four countries, which is a point that Members have raised. The Government agree that there are risks with the current situation. The Calman commission also noted that the current processes gave the Scottish Parliament some influence over the regulation of reserved professions—for instance, where there are orders and regulations relating to the regulation of professions that cover both devolved and reserved matters. The commission also took the view that there should be a common approach to the regulation of the health professions.
	The Government have accepted the arguments made by the Calman commission, so the clause re-reserves the regulation of all health care professions currently regulated by legislation. It also has the practical effect of reserving to the Westminster Parliament the subject matter of the regulation of any new health professions in the future.
	Notwithstanding the reservation that the clause will deliver, the UK Government will continue to agree policy in relation to the regulation of the health professions with the Scottish Government. The UK Government, through the Department of Health in England, will continue to engage closely with officials in the Scottish Government—and, for that matter, with the Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales—to develop future policy proposals concerning the regulation of health care professionals. This will ensure that the views of the Scottish people will be taken into consideration as we go forwards, but in a manner that will deliver a consistent approach to regulation that works for the whole of the UK.

Angus MacNeil: If in future a certain type of health profession develops that exists only in Scotland, is the Minister saying that regulation of it should be done in London?

David Mundell: The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was challenged to identify health professions that could exist only in Scotland—and failed to do so. The regulation will be dealt with in accordance with schedule 5. When we have had some identification of a health profession that could exist only in Scotland, we will be able to look at what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have to say about it.

Angus MacNeil: It would be good practice in shaping and making law to prepare for any eventuality. I put a particular type of eventuality to the Minister, but he has not provided an answer. If there is a certain type of medical profession that exists only in Scotland, what will happen?

David Mundell: I am afraid that that represents the level of debate on re-reservation that we have witnessed tonight. The SNP’s opposition to re-reservation is based entirely on dogma and political viewpoints rather than on the interests of the people of Scotland. The Calman commission looked very closely at these issues and considered that the balance lay with re-reserving the powers. The Government support that re-reservation and nothing we have heard in this debate or the previous one—or, I suspect, that we would have heard if we had
	had a debate on Antarctica—would convince any Member who looked at these matters either objectively or with the interests of the people of Scotland at heart to support the SNP position. I hope that SNP Members will withdraw their frivolous opposition so that the Committee will not have to divide on the issue.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 340, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 27 January.)
	The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	Clauses 14 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Speed limits

Amendment made: 30, page13,line26,at end insert—
	“(3ZD) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) are subject to the negative procedure.”
	( ) In subsection (3A)—
	(a) the words from “the National Park Authority” to the end become paragraph (a), and
	(b) after that paragraph insert “, and
	(b) such representative organisations as they think fit.”’.—(David Mundell.)
	Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 27 January).
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Housing

That the draft Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Mobile Homes

That the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Penalties, Offshore Income etc. (Designation of Territories) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Question agreed to.

PFIZER (SANDWICH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Laura Sandys: I thank the Minister for taking the time to be present this evening, as I know he has been all around the country promoting science and our technology base. I also recognise that he and the Government are taking the announcement of the closure of the Pfizer plant in Sandwich exceptionally seriously.
	I watched what happened previously when large numbers of redundancies were announced at the site, and it is clear that this Government have distinguished themselves as a Government of action and commitment. The last Government did not seem too worried about the closure of the Pfizer manufacturing plant at Sandwich, with hundreds of jobs lost. I did not hear the then Prime Minister commit to addressing the loss of UK-based skills, nor did I see a taskforce established within days to work with the company and keep as many jobs on site as possible. This Government have not stood by. They have not watched from the sidelines; instead they have galvanised all their resources to try to mitigate the impact this closure will have both locally and nationally.
	A fellow Member of this House—an Opposition Member—said to me, “Well Laura, at least it’s happened in the south-east. There are lots of jobs and opportunities for people there, unlike in the north.” May I therefore explain that although Thanet and Dover are located in the south-east, they do not look like the south-east? I represent the 64th most deprived district in the country, next door in terms of deprivation to Wigan and Wakefield. We calculate that the withdrawal of high-paid jobs at Pfizer, which is one of the very few high-paying employers, will bring the average wage in our area down to £17,700. We will therefore be fighting things out in the conference league, with wages that are the 15th lowest in the country.
	Let us add up the total of the potential job losses in an area where skills are low and job mobility even lower, and which is still recovering from coal pit closures and the demise of the British seaside holiday. Some 2,400 Pfizer jobs are at risk, and they are the highest paid jobs in the local economy. There are 1,700 contactors on the site, including technicians, scientists and support staff. It is also expected that we will lose thousands of public sector jobs. Experian calculates that the knock-on impact of these redundancies could mean that an additional 5,000 jobs are at risk.
	The Pfizer closure will also have a significant impact on the voluntary sector. Pfizer has been very generous in the past. At the last count, an annual sum of £250,000 was donated by Pfizer to voluntary groups locally; £460,000 was given by Pfizer staff to charities; and 200 local schools were supported to promote science. Every staff member was given five days of paid leave to help with local charity groups. This totals in one year much more than the $1 million given as a community legacy when Pfizer shut its operation in Michigan. It is a body blow to the community, which is so dependent on the voluntary sector.
	We cannot stop Pfizer leaving the site; that is its decision and responsibility. However, I ask the Minister to help us with our discussions with Pfizer. Pfizer has
	been in Sandwich for 60 years, but has given its staff and the community just 90 days to readjust. We know that significant numbers of staff will be made redundant soon, with little time for support to be put in place to help them to set up businesses, or to identify investors who might want to buy some of the assets and keep those important jobs on the Sandwich site. I pay tribute to the local Pfizer management at Sandwich who are trying to put in place new opportunities. They, too, have little time to ensure that jobs stay in Sandwich before redundancies are issued. This is a great disappointment, as there are some very exciting opportunities. The site and the staff have real potential.
	As the Minister knows, following the meeting he called with venture capitalists, there are some potential opportunities, such as large management buy-outs. In addition, the staff are considering setting up businesses, but will they have enough time to secure the finance and put the packages in place before there is a dispersal of the talented staff?
	I am not asking Pfizer to change its exit date—2012 will be when it closes its activities in Sandwich—but that does not mean that it has to rush to redundancies now when so much is being put in place to mitigate the company’s decision. I am not sure that 90 days’ notice after 60 years is fair or reasonable. We need more time, the staff and contractors need more time, and our east Kent economy needs more time.
	The Government also have a strong role to play, and with Ministers’ support much has already been achieved. With the Minister’s leadership and the support of the Prime Minister, the Government moved into action immediately. The taskforce, under the effective chairmanship of Paul Carter, has already put in place a range of new opportunities for the site. We are only 30 days into this process and this will be an endeavour for those with stamina. We are in this for the long haul, so we need the Government’s help to realise an exciting future for Sandwich. We need them to back the establishment of a life science centre on the current site at Sandwich, as a national resource, rather than just for our local economy. We seek economic incentives to support this centre in its early years, and we seek special tax credits for research and development that reach beyond the current criteria. This life science centre could be at the heart of a wider research and technology zone covering the whole site and going along the A256 corridor. We would also like the Government to look on this area as one of the flagship enterprise zones that the Chancellor advanced in such a welcome fashion in Cardiff this weekend.
	The east Kent economy has been crying out for years for better transport links: the area is 70 miles from London, but can take two hours to reach by train. The Minister experienced a very lengthy train journey of two and a half hours because of both a slow train and works on the line, so he knows that, per mile, Sandwich to London is one of the slowest rail routes in the country. I therefore ask for the Government’s support for our bid to get the rail line from London to Thanet upgraded so that we can get to Thanet within the hour. That would revolutionise our local economy.
	In conclusion, we need more time from Pfizer and we need the Government’s commitment for the long term. With that, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to turn our local economy around so that in years to come my east Kent colleagues and I can proudly state, “Yes,
	our area is part of the south-east economy. It does look like the rest of the south-east and our economy can eventually function like the rest of south-east.”

Charlie Elphicke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on her heroic efforts to corral and bring together the east Kent MPs, Kent county council, Dover district council and Thanet district council within 24 hours to make sure that there was a clear plan for a changeover from the large “big pharma” site to the new model of universities and smaller businesses collaborating and developing things in the future. I simply wish to support her point about the disgraceful transport links that we have to put up with. We need to get the fast line put in from Sandwich and Deal through to London, and we need Manston and the A256 corridor to be developed. That would enable us to have more jobs and more money, and would provide more effective business options for the people of Dover, Deal, south and north Thanet, and east Kent as a whole.

David Willetts: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing the debate. The presence of other hon. Members in the Chamber is a reminder of the strength of feeling in Kent about this issue. The important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr Gale), for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) shows that the issue affects a wider community than that in Sandwich.
	We in the Government were deeply disappointed by Pfizer’s decision. I vividly remember the meeting at No. 10 Downing street with the new chief executive of Pfizer on 24 January. I thought I was going to meet the new chief executive and learn about his plans for the future, so I was shocked and disappointed when he revealed that he was proposing to announce, in a week’s time, Pfizer’s withdrawal from its Sandwich plant. Of course, I asked immediately whether anything could be done in terms of national policy to change his mind and whether there was something we had got wrong that needed to corrected, but he was insistent that the decision was based on Pfizer’s wider global view about the strands of medical activity on which it wished to focus. Sadly, some of the activities at Sandwich are ones from which it plans to withdraw. Since that conversation, in which Pfizer insisted that there was nothing we could do at the national level, the focus has quite rightly been on what we can do for the local community in Sandwich, the economy of that part of Kent and, more widely, for the life sciences in our country. I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Thanet and her colleagues who are present for the incredibly constructive and energetic way in which they have tried to address that challenge.
	We decided immediately to invite Paul Carter, the leader of Kent county council, to lead a local taskforce that would assess the impact on the local economy and look at measures that could be taken so that the local economy was not damaged severely by this decision. Of
	course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and I are waiting for the report that he will bring to us, but it is already clear that three key issues have emerged, all of which were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet in her speech, the first of which is transport connections. It is clear that this is a long-standing problem in the area and, as she has said, it is one that I personally experienced in my painfully slow journey to Sandwich the other day.
	Clearly, there are some important transport challenges, but my hon. Friend will understand that I can make no commitment tonight on public expenditure issues, which are matters for the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport, but she, her colleagues and Kent county council have made very strong arguments about the need for a transport upgrade in the area. I understand the different things they are calling for, one of which is an improvement in the rail service. A powerful argument has been made that reducing the journey time to London to less than an hour would transform people’s perceptions of the site and its accessibility.
	The second argument that has been made is about the case for a new station and how that would encourage investment and would encourage people to move to the area.
	Thirdly, there is the whole issue of the airfield at Manston. Occasionally, I think that we have found Boris Johnson’s island. The existence of the runway and the great significance it could have for improving transport links has been drawn to our attention. I cannot make any commitments tonight, but that logic and the connection between the rail links, the new station and the future of the airfield have all been very well made and I know from my conversations with Councillor Paul Carter that he will be making those points in his report. We will then consider them very seriously indeed, because of the importance of the area and the severe blow that it has had with the withdrawal of Pfizer.
	The second set of local issues concerns employment. My hon. Friend put it eloquently. After 60 years of presence in the area, during which time the researchers and staff at Sandwich developed some extraordinarily successful drugs, it is understandable that the prospect of 90 days’ notice is extremely painful for people. There is great interest among the venture capital community and others in what could be done to support MBOs—to support new contract research organisations, perhaps to buy particular physical assets and intellectual property that has been generated on site. I understand that going through that process in the tight time scale of 90 days is very demanding. That is one of the reasons why we in the Government have tried to keep ahead of events and move with all necessary speed.
	I will take up with Pfizer the points that my hon. Friend made about the need to give sufficient time for such options to be properly explored. As she knows, I have already convened a brainstorming session of venture capitalists and others at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am keeping in close touch with the venture capital community. Yes, I will make the point to Pfizer that it has an obligation to ensure that such options are properly investigated.
	The third thing that is on the agenda for the local community is the enterprise zone idea. I was at the Conservative party’s spring conference in Cardiff this
	weekend, speaking on growth. The Chancellor gave an important speech with a clear commitment to back enterprise zones. Again, I cannot give any commitment this evening, but I know that my hon. Friend and her colleagues and the leader of Kent county council will be eloquent in making the case for the area as an enterprise zone, and I well understand the arguments that they will put.
	There is much work to be done on the exact design of an enterprise zone—to what extent it is a matter of rate relief, liberalising the planning regime or other special tax reliefs. All that, I am sure, will be unveiled at the Dispatch Box in a fortnight, when the House may be even more crowded than it is tonight. We have only a short time to wait, but both the definition of the scope for enterprise zones and the choice of the areas where those will be is important. I know that the case for this area of Kent as an enterprise zone will be made powerfully.
	I see those as the big local issues. We are focusing on all of them, working with the taskforce—the transport issues, the employment issues and the enterprise zone. Perhaps I can briefly mention the wider context. Although the decision has been a blow for the local community in Sandwich, it has led to stocktaking about life sciences as a British-based industry. It is clear now, especially when we put the Pfizer decision alongside a similar decision by AstraZeneca at Charnwood, that there are some big structural changes going on in the industry. I referred to one—Pfizer’s decision to withdraw from some strands of research—but there is another issue as well.
	There is a shift away from in-house research and development towards contractual arrangements with outside research organisations or contractual arrangements with university departments, where firms look for the original medical research to take place. Also, increasingly, the larger companies are waiting to see what small and medium-sized enterprises come up with and buying up the SMEs when they have clearly got the product. Just as the disappearance of Bell Labs was a wake-up call about changes in the structure of the IT industry 20 years ago, we are seeing an important change in the structure of the pharmaceutical industry.
	The Government, and I with my responsibilities for life sciences, are committed to making sure that as these structural changes occur, Britain remains at the forefront of life sciences, and that we are sufficiently nimble footed and skilful that we ensure that as these changes happen Britain emerges from them with an even stronger life sciences economy than we have at present. That is why we have, for example, protected in cash terms the science and research budget and, within that, given
	particular protection to the Medical Research Council’s budget, supported by the patent income it receives from successful patents. We know that high-quality medical research is absolutely fundamental to ensuring that we have a strong life sciences industry.
	That is also why we are looking carefully at how we can improve the environment for clinical trials in this country. I see a great potential future for the Sandwich facility as a place from which clinical trials are run, even if no primary pharmaceutical or medical research is undertaken there. It is a scandal that we have inherited a regulatory regime in which it takes 660 days from the decision to test a drug to the first patient receiving it in a clinical trial. When we on the Government Benches talk about the burdens of red tape, it is not simply an abstract issue; we have a real example of that burden in front of us. The Secretary of State for Health and I received an excellent report on that in January, and I know that the Chancellor is very aware of it. I am absolutely committed to working with the Secretary of State to try to transform the environment for clinical trials so that Britain’s declining market share in clinical trials is reversed. We have gone from having 6% of clinical trials to 2% in the past 15 years. That shocking decline under the previous Government must be arrested and reversed. We are trying to create a better environment for clinical trials, which could be of direct benefit for people at the Pfizer facility in Sandwich.
	We are also looking carefully at the regime for venture capital investment, as we need to do everything possible to ensure that venture capitalists are keen to invest in this important sector. Again, we have seen a decline in venture capital investment in recent years, which we need to address and turn around. Finally, we must ensure that we have an environment in which contract research organisations—I suspect that we will hear more about those in the years ahead, as they will be an important part of the industry’s future structure—have a tax and regulatory regime that supports them so that Britain becomes Europe’s preferred environment for contract-based research.
	If we put together our commitment to the local community, our willingness to focus on the specific issues that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet raised—transport, employment, redundancy arrangements and enterprise zones—and our commitment to life sciences as an important British strength where we can do better and must not settle for decline and contraction, I hope that she will take some comfort from this debate that she has rightly secured.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.